human life began in Africa, is this not what the bible tells us?

[RealityCheck01]

Whats I find hypocritical is that if some want to exclude any support as soon as it has a hint of religion attached to it.

What I find hypocritical, stevevw, is linking to known cranks as if they were an valid source of science.
Intelligent Design was bad science to begin with and has basically died since there have been no papers in peer-reviewed biology journals for several years.

You need to realize that people publishing in an in-house journal is not credible peer reviewed literature.

You need to realize that a theory that is held to be wrong by the vast majority of biologists and is only supported by a handful of biologists is the definition of a crank theory!

You need to realize that testing the peer review process is good!

Just because it has known that for a couple of centuries that bad papers are published, it does not mean that invalid papers are good.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No really, not all classifications are proven wrong or become doubtful. But I have shown that in some cases they can mistake what is natural variation within the one species for transitional features of others species. Ie the Skulls at Georgia if you were following the posts.

I have been following the posts and you are still wrong, stevevw.

The "Skulls at Georgia" suggest that some specimens could be misclassified using only skulls. The majority of Homo specimens are more than skulls.

Skull suggests three early human species were one
Skull suggests three early human species were one : Nature News & Comment

People know that animal skulls (your images) can look similar but the animals are not related because of the rest of the body.
That is the point with the thylacine / grey wolf skulls.
That is the point with the "Skulls at Georgia"

Wow, stevevw - lots more animals that look alike and are of different species!

The actual crank you linked to was Dr. Daniel Moran, Ph.D. He is a crank because he is ignorant of the fact that molecular phylogeny is evidence for evolution:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

And Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist

For some reason you think that

Darwin's "tree of life" concept was valid for what he knew, i.e. about macroscopic, sexed organisms, not bacteria. Science progresses - that a sketched concept turns out to be too simplistic is not surprising.

is about religion !

And yet more progress about evolution:

• Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies ... - PubMed - NCBI
• Interactions between species: Powerful driving force behind evolution?
  [*]Interactions between species: Powerful driving force behind evolution? -- ScienceDaily
• Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
• Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution
• Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
• Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree
• Enzyme Families--Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design? A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase Family
  Reeves
• Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? : Nature News & Comment

So why did he say that.

Because it is a fact about the real world that the fossil re3cord will be incomplete as Darwin was careful to explain

The reclassification of fossils does not change the facts:
Claim CC200:

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

...
So if we line up several of the same species we may get a variation of the jaw for example.

No one would be stupid enough to do that.
What happens is that measurements of fossils of the same age and species are taken to give an average and standard deviation, e.g of the size of jaw bones. If a group of fossils have measurements that are transitional between earlier and later fossils (which may be of different species) then they are transitional fossils, stevevw!

The Origin of Species: Chapter 6 is Darwin being a good scientist once again.

It does matter that evolutionists can explain how an eye can be build from random mutations and natural selection. Denial of the fact that they can does not mean that they cannot, stevevw !

The evidence shows that random beneficial mutations are very rare and they do build better and more complex organisms over long periods of time - that is the definition of beneficial!

So peer reviewed papers are only acceptable when they are not done by people who have any connections to religion...snipped rant....

Wrong, stevevw: There are not peer reviewed papers.
These are:

Then you have people lying about "Peer-Reviewed Science ...", etc. !
These are IDiots working for the Biologic Institute publishing in their in-house journal BIO-Complexity.

I know that there are Christians (and other religions) and atheists who do scientific work. They are brave enough to publish in the peer reviewed literature where they know that their work will be inspected and critiqued before and after publication.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The "Skulls at Georgia" suggest that some specimens could be misclassified using only skulls. The majority of Homo specimens are more than skulls.

To emphasize that this is an ongoing, not settled matter, stevevw:
Dmanisi skull

This discovery led the scientists to suggest that two species of early hominins, Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis, were actually both Homo erectus.[2] This is an ongoing debate among the scientific community.[6]

 

[RealityCheck01]

Here's a classic example: Scientists claim that it takes millions of years for fossils to form from dead animals. Since that is not demonstrated, it is only an assumption. It is quite possible that it happened over thousands of years, which would fit into YEC. BUT it's still assumed to be millions, even though that cannot be demonstrated.

That is a bad example, Aldebaran: The measured age of fossils is not how long they take to form. Some fossils actually do form "over thousands of years"!
It is that measured age that rules out YEC.

And I have to ask the obvious question - Aldebaran, can you count to 10,000 say ?
That is the number of tree rings that you can count in trees.
Varves take us back ~30,000 years.
Ice cores take us back ~400,000 years.

Then there is radiometric dating - back billions of years.

 

[stevevw]

None of those extremes overlaps with H. erectus.

I beg to differ. As I said with modern humans we have just about every extreme. We have the large jutting jaws, we have the bigger heads and body frames. We have the protruding brows and sloping foreheads. It may only by a few examples and many may only show one or two of these features together but its there and shows the possibility that modern humans can produce those features.

The other thing to consider from what I said in my last post is that humans have changed since then. So we shouldn't be seeing much of the Erectus shapes nowadays. That’s because as a race we have mixed more and blended all the different genes. So the more humans mix the more they add all the different variations to the gene pool. Remember that even evolutionists say that there were different shaped humans around in the past. There were the Neanderthals, the Devonian's and then modern humans. They have interpreted these as separate species because of their different shapes. But they may have been just the wide variety of extreme features within the one species.

They have said there is evidence that they all cross bred with each other. So when you mix all those different shapes you end up with a greater gene pool and a more blended shape. That blended shape then can be interpreted as another new species being Homo sapiens, But all it really us is the same species with a more blended look. As I said if you look at the native nowadays and throughout our history they are more isolated. So they would have retained more of the original genes. That’s why they still look so robust and retain more of those stronger features we see in ancient humans like Erectus and Neanderthals.

Isn't that exactly what a transitional is?

No because the blended shape came from the existing genes and not new mutations that added new genetic info. When a group has a new person with different features like being taller or having a big nose comes into that group and they mate then the group now has the added feature of being taller and having a big nose into their gene pool. Being taller or having the big nose wasn't caused by a mutation. It was a genetic feature that was already there and is added to the mix. When you add all the possible different features that may have been available back then you get a blended look of all the genetic material that is available within the entire human race. its still happening today. We see this now with different nationalities mating and blending out the stronger features of Chinese or Middle Eastern for example.

That is completely made up.

No even the scientists say that there is evidence that the ancient humans of different species mated together. They say many of us have some Neanderthal genes in us. But they interpret those as different species mixing. There are those who say that there was perhaps one or two original species that may have had a wider range of features within the same species. This is seen with the skulls at Georgia where the features of what they say are Homo erectus covers many other species they have named in the past like homo Habilis and homo rudolfensis and a few others.

There are many discoveries they have made which are linking ancient humans together more and more. Its either showing that modern type humans were around longer than thought so they may overlap other species that were there at the same time. They have found fossil evidence of Neanderthals living with modern humans. They are finding genetic evidence that is linking different species together more and more. All this points towards humans being a single species. But evolutionists will keep saying they are separate species because they have to to make the links for evolution. So they will interpret the evidence one way and others will see it a different way.

No natives overlap with Neanderthals or H. erectus.

Yes they do. If you look at some of the native you can see the features. They may not be as strong but its there. Look at the Aborigines and islander people like the Papua New Guineans. Look at the American Indians and other natives like the Eskimos for example. The question would be how did the natives get to look like they do when they are so different from say city folk. Is this the results of evolution which is suppose to take things away from the looks of the ancient humans. Is this the result of reverse evolution where some modern looking humans are going back to look like ancient humans. Or is this showing a very large degree of variety within the modern human which supports what I am saying about the one species anyway. At the very least there is a great difference between natives and other people so this is showing that there is a great amount of variation within the same species that has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution and mutations.

Yes, they say that we are connected through a common ancestor. Our lineages stayed apart for hundreds of thousands of years which cause the Neanderthal and H. sapiens genomes to diverge. However, there was some hanky panky that brought a little bit of Neanderthal DNA into the H. sapiens population. We know that this is Neanderthal DNA because it shows higher divergence which could only have been produced by the two populations staying apart for hundreds of thousands of years.

As I said it depends on how you see things. But there is evidence that humans and Neanderthals live and mated together. They did everything together that a single species would do. So the Neanderthals were just a version of the same species maybe what the natives are today. They mixed with modern humans like people mix with natives or a particular race. Then that race or native gene is slowly blended out or within the mix so its not prominent anymore. So they could be the one species still and the divergence is just as time has gone by the Neanderthals gene has been blended out.

They weren't all one species. They were separate species with rare cross breeding.

So not only do we have to believe that apes produced one lot of humans they may have produced two or three or more. When is a human not a human? When are human species variations of features a feature of a different species and not a feature of the same species? How do you know? There is no way of telling. But if they were around at the same time and living with each other then chances are they are the same species.



If they mated then they had offspring’s. If they had offspring’s then they are not really a separate species. If they had offspring’s then they would be staying together and building communities. There is evidence that Neanderthals spoke, used art and practiced some sort of religious ceremonies. So they were more like humans than given credit for. It seems they did a lot of what we did and did it with us. If they walked like us, talked like us and lived like us chances are they were just like us.


Were Neanderthals a different species?

The Neanderthal DNA scattered around the modern human genome could total as much as 40 percent or more of the Neanderthal genome

Were Neanderthals a different species? | Genetic Literacy Project


Research Finds Genetic History of Modern Europeans Tangled [FONT=&quot]http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-research-finds-genetic-history-of-modern-europeans-is-tangled/2453492.htm[/FONT]
The evidence here seems to be that there is a tangled and interrelated history. Its hard to tell what is going on at the moment. But the evidence can also indicate that all this entanglement and mixing of genes and features and closely related fossils finds that they were all from the one species. Evolutionists just want to separate things because that helps build transitional links for evolution. Its a matter of interpretation just like a lot of the fossil evidence. Is it a variation of the same species or is it the features of a separate species. Are you a slitter or a lumper.

Then why are humans and chimps different shapes, if it isn't due to a difference in DNA?

If by "look the same" you mean "on a superficial level", then yes they do kind of look the same. However, when you dig down to the specifics, that similarity goes away.

Also, you are arguing that there is no reason that a designer would have to make the molecular phylogeny follow the morphological phylogeny. I agree. However, the two trees do correlate with one another which is evidence for evolution.

That’s the thing; the phylogenetic trees don’t always follow the observational anatomical evidence that is made between animals. So apes and humans are suppose to be 98% similar (which is under question and maybe more like 86%) they look fairly similar. But then humans are supposed to be 70% similar to sponges but look nothing like them. Then you can have two unrelated creatures in their genetics that look very much the same. IE echidna and Porcupines.

Humans share 70 percent of genetic code with sea sponge.http://www.naturalnews.com/030516_genetic_code_sea_sponges.html#ixzz3VHeTCSLI
Incongruence between cladistic and taxonomic systems 1
Incongruence between cladistic and taxonomic systems
Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent.
Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies ... - PubMed - NCBI
Squid and Humans Evolved the Same Eye
Squid and Humans Evolved the Same Eye | IFLScience

Just one simple question. Why are humans different from chimps? Why are we different shapes? Is it due to DNA or not?

As far as I understand the DNA determines our shapes and features. But what are you trying to imply here.

 

[Queller]

So if God's inspired Word tells you one thing, and your own understanding tells you something else, which one do you rely on?

My understanding of God's inspired Word doesn't conflict with my understanding of God's fingerprints.

 

[Queller]

Right. So God's word had to pass through fallible humans. Compare that to the creation which is the direct work of the Creator without needing to pass through humans first.

This^^ Exactly.

 

[Queller]

But what people are seeing in the creation is totally done by humans,

No, it isn't. The creation is done by God. We simply understand it better than people did 3,000 years ago.

along with the understanding of what they're seeing, and then passed down to the non-scientists to believe it.

The same thing applies to the Bible, along with the understanding of what they're reading, and then passed down by priests/reverends/pastors to the lay people to believe it.

 

[Queller]

You mean the fact that he almost never states his position,

I'm a theistic evolutionist. What else do you want to know?

but only questions and ridicules the positions of others?

I question and occasionally ridicule YECism because it conflicts with God's creation. I don't question your or anyone else's belief in God.

 

[Loudmouth]

I beg to differ.

Then show us a modern human that would be considered an H. erectus. Show us the skull, features, wrist bones . . . all of it.

The other thing to consider from what I said in my last post is that humans have changed since then.

Yes, they have evolved. That's the whole point.

So we shouldn't be seeing much of the Erectus shapes nowadays. That’s because as a race we have mixed more and blended all the different genes. So the more humans mix the more they add all the different variations to the gene pool. Remember that even evolutionists say that there were different shaped humans around in the past. There were the Neanderthals, the Devonian's and then modern humans. They have interpreted these as separate species because of their different shapes. But they may have been just the wide variety of extreme features within the one species.

All of the DNA studies shows that their DNA was different, not merely a mixture of modern DNA.

They have said there is evidence that they all cross bred with each other.

They siad that there is evidence for LIMITED cross breeding. You keep ignoring that part.

No because the blended shape came from the existing genes and not new mutations that added new genetic info.

Then how do you explain how neanderthals had different DNA than modern humans?

Yes they do. If you look at some of the native you can see the features.

Then show us. You have failed to do so thus far. All of the modern human skulls you have shown lack the size of the brow ridges and sloping forehead.

As I said it depends on how you see things. But there is evidence that humans and Neanderthals live and mated together.

Crossbreeding was very limited. Only 5% of European DNA comes from neanderthals. The other 95% diverged from neanderthal populations.

So not only do we have to believe that apes produced one lot of humans they may have produced two or three or more. When is a human not a human?

It is as arbitrary of a line as when someone is tall instead of short, fat instead of skinny, or a chihuahua instead of a wolf. However, being arbitrary does not mean that everyone who is fat is also skinny, those who are short are tall, or that a chihuahua fits the morphological variation found in wolves.

If they mated then they had offspring’s. If they had offspring’s then they are not really a separate species.

That is false. Occasional cross breeding is allowed between species. If there is not unfettered gene flow then you get divergence which is EXACTLY what we see between anatomically modern humans and neanderthals. They are considered different species because the barrier to gene flow was strong enough that the poplations genetically diverged despite limited cross breeding.

That’s the thing; the phylogenetic trees don’t always follow the observational anatomical evidence that is made between animals. So apes and humans are suppose to be 98% similar (which is under question and maybe more like 86%) they look fairly similar. But then humans are supposed to be 70% similar to sponges but look nothing like them. Then you can have two unrelated creatures in their genetics that look very much the same. IE echidna and Porcupines.

Until you do a proper and objective cladistical analysis, you are just urinating in the wind. Cite the proper synapomorphies and differentiate between homologues and analogues.

Humans share 70 percent of genetic code with sea sponge.http://www.naturalnews.com/030516_genetic_code_sea_sponges.html#ixzz3VHeTCSLI

This is a great example of your dishonesty. The article says that we share 70% of the same genes. It says nothing about DNA sequence homology, or overall genome homology. You try to compare this to direct base to base comparisons of human and ape genomes. Those are completely different types of comparisons, and yet you dishonestly treat them the same. The real question is why do creationists like yourself have to twist and deceive in this manner?

I would really like you to explain yourself. Why do you do this?

 

[Aldebaran]

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

Right. So God's word had to pass through fallible humans. Compare that to the creation which is the direct work of the Creator without needing to pass through humans first.
​

This^^ Exactly.

Oh my! Queller agreeing wholeheartedly with an atheist! Now I've seen it all!

 

[RealityCheck01]

I beg to differ. As I said with modern humans we have just about every extreme.
...more of the Homo species = modern humans fantasy snipped...

Wrong, stevevw: Homo erectus, etc. are not varieties of Homo sapiens. No matter how many times you repeat your opinion that they are
That is a lie that we see on anti-evolution and even some creationist web sites.
Scientists have found that Homo erectus for example have features that do not exist in Homo sapiens - different neck, spines and feet structures. Homo erectus (Encyclopedia Britannica) describes the differences - starting with the skull:

Besides their brain capacity, the skulls of H. erectus show a number of other distinctive features. The face, which is preserved in only a few specimens, is massively constructed, and its lower parts project forward. The bone forming the wall of the nose is thinner and more everted than in earlier Homo or Australopithecus, and the nasal bridge is relatively high and prominent. ... Other distinguishing features in H. erectus can be found on the underside of the skull, especially at the jaw joint. The lower jaw itself is deep and robust and lacks chin development. The teeth are on the whole larger than those of Homo sapiens.

Unless this is the delusion that every Homo fossil that has been found is a diseased member of Homo sapiens !

Also: Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes

Compare the above figures with the 5 measurable Java Man skulls. These average 930 cc, less than the minimum of the 600 modern skulls cited above, with the smallest being 815 cc. Moreover, unlike modern humans with low brain sizes, these skulls are very robust, with flattened braincases and large brow ridges.

This also points out that brain size is loosely correlated with body size (the larger the body, the bigger brain). So the creationist idea about Homo erectus, etc. being pygmies is wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Then show us a modern human that would be considered an H. erectus. Show us the skull, features, wrist bones . . . all of it.

[FONT=&quot]Your still not understanding what I am saying. I said that we can see some of the features of Homo erectus in humans. Maybe not all together and at the same time. But this shows that we are capable of having those features. There have been humans that display the large jutting jaw; there have been humans that have displayed the head size and prominent brows. But we won’t expect to see a complete Homo erectus now because they have been blended out over time. But what we can see is remnants of them. If you take the Neanderthals which were more recent you can almost see a more complete Neanderthal shape still today because they are more recent. Look at the Aborigines.
[/FONT]

Yes, they have evolved. That's the whole point.

[FONT=&quot]Yes but they haven’t evolved from the Darwinian evolution of mutations changing a creature from one type of animal to a completely different one. Humans are not evolving from apes to humans and then into some other creature like a reptilian. The changes that have happened in humans occur with the natural ability within their existing genetics. When Homo erectus lived on the earth there were many shapes and not just the typical one we have always depicted. It was the same for the Neanderthals.

Scientists say the Neanderthals lived with the Devonian's, another unidentified groups and the modern humans were around as well. For all we know there were probably more groups. They say that within the Neanderthals was a great variety of shapes as well from what we depict as typical Neanderthals to more modern human like people. So this would have been the same for Homo erectus but they would have had their own particular shape. They would have had a great amount of variation within Homo erectus as seen in the skulls at Georgia.

This would have happened from them living in their own isolated places that have made them look different. Just like the Chinese, Russians and other nationalities we see today. But those differences were not through mutations. They are just from each particular group being isolated. So as time then goes by and the group’s then mix this will blend them more and take out the different features that each group had. That’s why we see the natives still look a bit like Neanderthals who were the most recent different looking ancient man because they are still isolated.
[/FONT]

All of the DNA studies shows that their DNA was different, not merely a mixture of modern DNA.

Yes it was different and not modern because we have our own DNA through time. But they find traces of the ancient DNA from the past in us as well. In fact they are finding traces of what they say are many different groups of humans. But this maybe just isolated groups of the same human race that eventually got blended back in and then out again.

They said that there is evidence for LIMITED cross breeding. You keep ignoring that part.This is where there is conflicting evidence. Some say we had ample time to cross breed. [FONT=&quot]

The thing is the evidence is changing every 2nd week with this subject. The more they are able to extract [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] from these ancient bones the more new findings they get. In fact it is so conflicting and a mash of evidence that it sort of supports more of a great mixture within the one human species. It doesn’t seem to just be the Neanderthals. There were perhaps several other groups that all intermixed. But this could also be that they are seeing it as separate groups when it was all the same group just splitting and going their own separate ways. Here is some more support for how they say humans mixed and cross bred.
Neanderthal Genome Reveals Incest, Interbreeding and Mystery
Neanderthal Genome Reveals Incest, Interbreeding and Mystery : Science : Nature World News
[/FONT]

Then how do you explain how neanderthals had different DNA than modern humans?

[FONT=&quot]From what I understand modern humans have a bit of Neanderthal [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in them. But there are many different bits of Neanderthal [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in different portions of modern human populations depending on where they are located. All those different bits add up to a lot of the same Neanderthal [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. So why can't those bits of Neanderthal [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] be the remnants of Neanderthals that is being blended out as time goes by. Why does it have to be a different [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. If we all have a little of that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] then it shows that we were all from the same pot.

To me it seems they are finding things that are connecting us back to each other all the time. Be it fossil evidence which shows that what was thought of as many species was actually the one species. With [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] evidence showing a bit of the so called different lines of human evolution is really in all of us. They find some aspect of what would be an unrelated find in parts of the world that shouldn't be there. But they put that down to an unknown species or they make another split to accommodate that new line of evidence they find. They keep doing this and its creating this complicated mish mash of a web of evidence. But it could just be evidence for humans being the same species and they just diverged throughout the world as time went on. So now modern humans will have a little of whatever ancestor they had come from in that part of the world where the original humans went there own ways. But we can all be connected back to each other even though the DNA is very fragmented now. It all depends on how it is interpreted.

[/FONT]

Then show us. You have failed to do so thus far. All of the modern human skulls you have shown lack the size of the brow ridges and sloping forehead.

The modern humans don’t have to have that definite strong shape of the Homo Erectus. That’s because a lot of time has passed and it has been blended out. But we can see some remnants. We can see more of a Neanderthal look in natives like the aborigines today because the Neanderthals are more recent.

But here is the another thing that puts a spanner in the works for evolution. They have found modern looking humans in the times of Neanderthals which would support the great variation of humans back then and that their mixing has blended their look into what we see today. The DNA evidence also brings into question the evolution of man from Africa as well. If they evolved we shouldn’t have seen any modern looking humans then. There are many of these spanners in the works for evolution which are hard to explain. But are not so hard to explain if they support a great variety of shapes within the one species. We just haven’t found enough of the fossils yet.

Mungo Man was a hominin who was estimated to have died 62,000 years ago and was ritually buried with his hands covering his penis. Anatomically, Mungo Man's bones were distinct from other human skeletons being unearthed in Australia. Unlike the younger skeletons that had big-brows and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans.

The ANU's John Curtin School of Medical Research found that Mungo Man's skeleton's contained a small section of mitochondrial DNA. After analyzing the DNA, the school found that Mungo Man's DNA bore no similarity to the other ancient skeletons, modern Aborigines and modern Europeans. Furthermore, his mitochondrial DNA had become extinct. The results called into question the 'Out of Africa' theory of human evolution. If Mungo Man was descended from a person who had left Africa in the past 200,000 years, then his mitochondrial DNA should have looked like all of the other samples.
Another spanner in the traditional theories are the Kow Swamp skeletons from northern Victoria, which are reminiscent of Homo erectus. Specifically, they have thick brow ridges, sloping foreheads and very large teeth. If the Kow Swamp skeletons had been found in Indonesia and dated at 100,000 + years, then they might have been categorized as Homo erectus but being found in Australia and dated at only 10,000 years was problematic. According to traditional theories, Homo erectus never reached Australia and was believed to have died out when Homo sapiens reached Indonesia in excess of 50,000 years ago. Even if the Kow Swamp people weren't Homo erectus, it was hard to explain why an ancient looking people occupied Australia after a more modern looking people. As explained by Professor Alan Thorne,

Mungo Man - Turning Evolution Upside Down

So this is showing that humans that looked like Homo erectus were around only 10,000 years ago. So that shows that the shape cannot really determine the species. Or that there is a great amount of variation within the same species. The DNA evidence is bringing up anomalies that dont fit in with the way evolutionists have painted the picture of human evolution. It gets hard for evolution to keep explaining their anomalies. But they keep popping up and more are popping up as we sequence the DNA and find new fossils.

Crossbreeding was very limited. Only 5% of European DNA comes from neanderthals. The other 95% diverged from neanderthal populations.

From what I understand that are finding higher percentages of certain Neanderthal genes in different races. Why would this be? One thing it shows is that modern humans didn’t need any mutations and natural selection to get these genes. They came via HGT. So there were other ways for animals to get new gene information besides evolution.

But another thing I don’t understand is that they say the Neanderthals and maybe a number of other groups of humans were already in Europe and maybe Asia before ancient man who many class as the line to modern humans even left Africa. So if all these different groups originally came from each other why would they all have traces of the same genetics anyway. If they are saying that the one line diverged and then became the different groups like the Neanderthals then why can’t this also be evidence for the one species anyway? If the one species diverged and then came back together it would produce the same results. That’s why I think it’s still very hard to work out what is going on. That’s why they are getting conflicting evidence.

This study suggests a lot more Neandathal genes could be in modern humans.
So if the suggest up to 70% why not possibly 100% and it has just been taken out over time. That would mean we are Neanderthal.

Past calculations suggested that anywhere from 35 to 70 percent of the Neanderthal genome could exist in modern people.
[FONT=&quot]At least 20% of Neanderthal DNA Is in Humans

[/FONT]

That is false. Occasional cross breeding is allowed between species. If there is not unfettered gene flow then you get divergence which is EXACTLY what we see between anatomically modern humans and neanderthals. They are considered different species because the barrier to gene flow was strong enough that the poplations genetically diverged despite limited cross breeding.

[FONT=&quot]Well it just seems that everything they talk about with Neanderthals seems to involve modern humans. Fossils evidence shows they lived together, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] evidence shows they mated together and that there maybe a large amount of Neandathal [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in us. Larger than a brief encounter and they may possible find more similar [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] as they discover more bones. But there is evidence of other groups we may have had encounters with. At this stage at least two. What if they find several? What will that mean? That there was many groups living at the same time all mating with each other. Maybe it was just the one group who had several isolated sub groups just like we see today. I think there is a lot more investigation to be done before the full picture will emerge.
[/FONT]

This is a great example of your dishonesty. The article says that we share 70% of the same genes. It says nothing about DNA sequence homology, or overall genome homology. You try to compare this to direct base to base comparisons of human and ape genomes. Those are completely different types of comparisons, and yet you dishonestly treat them the same. The real question is why do creationists like yourself have to twist and deceive in this manner?

I would really like you to explain yourself. Why do you do this?

There is no dishonesty. This is how I have understood it. It seems to be saying wow we are so much like Neanderthals. So blame the article, and its not the only one. I am not a geneticist so I am learning as I go. But I am not in the business of being dishonest as you so quickly want to accuse. If I learn that I may have misunderstood things I will accept that. The problem with this topic is that things change so fast and new discoveries change things. Then there are contradicting supports as well.

 

[stevevw]

What I find hypocritical, stevevw, is linking to known cranks as if they were an valid source of science.
Intelligent Design was bad science to begin with and has basically died since there have been no papers in peer-reviewed biology journals for several years.

To be honest I dont look upon basing support on ID and creationism versus secular and atheistic views. I will look for things that support a particular test or experiment they have done and the results they have found. It may not prove ID or creation but it will bring into question the mechanisms that evolution use to prove their theory. There is plenty of non religious support for genetic testing of things like mutations and natural selection. Theres plenty of interesting info with epigentics, HGT and testing if mutations can bring enough benefits to add complex design to an animal. I'm more about questioning the common held view of evolution and I think there is a heap of good info out there that does that without having to look to religious sites.

You need to realize that people publishing in an in-house journal is not credible peer reviewed literature.

You need to realize that a theory that is held to be wrong by the vast majority of biologists and is only supported by a handful of biologists is the definition of a crank theory!

You need to realize that testing the peer review process is good!

Just because it has known that for a couple of centuries that bad papers are published, it does not mean that invalid papers are good.

The links I cited were not just about bad papers. It was also showing that there is a herd mentality. Many tend to go along with the consensus and any findings that contradict that are frowned upon. There is also a bias with topics like evolution. When people bring up things that question the consensus opinion they are ridiculed. This has been seen in scientists being sacked and not being able to get their papers published. So even if any scientist who support ID or any controversial support that contradicts the consensus it is hard for them to get the paper past the first base let along published. Thats why they have their own facilities I guess.

But from what I have been reading what these scientists are talking about isn't just from any religious source. There are main stream scientists who will talk about similar aspects of what people that support ID or creation talk about. They just go about it in a different way. But they more or less agree that the evidence is there questioning evolution and supporting some degree of design. I have linked many of these supports for people to see and most are from non religious links. Most of the time I try to link non religious support as I find it doesn't get past first base on this site either. That in itself shows a bit of bias as even if the sources are correct they dont even get the chance to prove it. They are automatically dismissed through assumption. So I tend to find non religious ones to support what I say.

 

[freezerman2000]

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

Right. So God's word had to pass through fallible humans. Compare that to the creation which is the direct work of the Creator without needing to pass through humans first.
​

Oh my! Queller agreeing wholeheartedly with an atheist! Now I've seen it all!

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh my! Queller agreeing wholeheartedly with an atheist! Now I've seen it all!

Are you disagreeing with a fellow christian?

 

[Loudmouth]

Your still not understanding what I am saying. I said that we can see some of the features of Homo erectus in humans.

No, we don't. No modern human has a backwards sloping skull like that found in H. erectus. NONE. No modern human has the wrist morphology found in H. erectus. NONE. No modern human has a brain shaped like H. erectus. NONE.

All you are doing is avoiding these facts.

Yes but they haven’t evolved from the Darwinian evolution of mutations changing a creature from one type of animal to a completely different one.

Then show us the evidence to back this claim. Stop claiming it and produce the data.

Scientists say the Neanderthals lived with the Devonian's, another unidentified groups and the modern humans were around as well. For all we know there were probably more groups. They say that within the Neanderthals was a great variety of shapes as well from what we depict as typical Neanderthals to more modern human like people. So this would have been the same for Homo erectus but they would have had their own particular shape. They would have had a great amount of variation within Homo erectus as seen in the skulls at Georgia.

There is great variation among dogs. Does this mean that dogs are also human?

Yes it was different and not modern because we have our own DNA through time. But they find traces of the ancient DNA from the past in us as well. In fact they are finding traces of what they say are many different groups of humans. But this maybe just isolated groups of the same human race that eventually got blended back in and then out again.

If we had our own DNA, then your claims fall apart.

The thing is the evidence is changing every 2nd week with this subject.

And now you are going to ignore the evidence altogether.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]From what I understand modern humans have a bit of Neanderthal [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in them. But there are many different bits of Neanderthal [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in different portions of modern human populations depending on where they are located. All those different bits add up to a lot of the same Neanderthal [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. So why can't those bits of Neanderthal [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] be the remnants of Neanderthals that is being blended out as time goes by. Why does it have to be a different [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. If we all have a little of that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] then it shows that we were all from the same pot.

You can lead a horse to water . . .

We have the genomes of both anatomical modern humans AND neanderthals from 30,000 years ago. The 30,000 year old AMH samples match our genomes today. The neanderthal DNA does not. They were separate populations with only limited crossbreeding. That is what led to the differences between the genomes.

To me it seems they are finding things that are connecting us back to each other all the time.

Those same studies link humans and chimps to a common ancestor, but you ignore those studies because it contradicts your beliefs.

But here is the another thing that puts a spanner in the works for evolution. They have found modern looking humans in the times of Neanderthals which would support the great variation of humans back then and that their mixing has blended their look into what we see today.

Again, the genetic studies disprove your claim. There were separate populations with only rare cross breeding.

There is no dishonesty. This is how I have understood it. It seems to be saying wow we are so much like Neanderthals. So blame the article, and its not the only one. I am not a geneticist so I am learning as I go. But I am not in the business of being dishonest as you so quickly want to accuse. If I learn that I may have misunderstood things I will accept that. The problem with this topic is that things change so fast and new discoveries change things. Then there are contradicting supports as well.

Funny how you talked about apes and sponges before, and now you are trying to use a sleight of hand to make it look like you were talking about neanderthals. This is what you said before:

"That’s the thing; the phylogenetic trees don’t always follow the observational anatomical evidence that is made between animals. So apes and humans are suppose to be 98% similar (which is under question and maybe more like 86%) they look fairly similar. But then humans are supposed to be 70% similar to sponges but look nothing like them."

First, you lie outright about the 86%. Second, the 98% is a base to base comparison. The sponge comparison is not a base to base comparison. They are simply looking to see how many genes we share. If those genes differ by 50% at the nucleotide level it still counts as a 100% match. Those are two completely different comparisons, yet you dishonestly treat them the same. You do this type of thing over and over and over.

The real question you need to ask yourself is why you have to use such deception.

 

[RealityCheck01]

To be honest I dont look upon basing support on ID and creationism versus secular and atheistic views. ...

Then why are you citing ID that do not have any valid published tests or experiments to back up their claims, stevevw ?

Then you have people lying about "Peer-Reviewed Science ...", etc. !
These are IDiots working for the Biologic Institute publishing in their in-house journal BIO-Complexity.

Why did you repeat lies (quote mining) about what Darwin wrote, stevevw?
Darwin noted that he had no expectation of an infinite number of transitions in the fossil record and explained why. Claim CC200 explains that we have found many transitional fossils.
CA113.1. Darwin on evolution of the eye.

The established observations ( "tests and experiments") is that evolution exists. The established theory has mechanisms that explain the observations - that is what a valid scientific theory.

Science has questioned the mechanisms that evolution uses ever since Darwin suggested evolution by natural selection. The basics are still valid. It is that questioning that has revealed the details and other mechanisms.

The links I cited were not just about bad papers. ...herd mentality fantasy...

Wrong, stevevw: The links you cited to an in-house journal are about a ghetto mentality !
You cited authors so afraid of peer review that they select not to publish in the appropriate scientific literature. Instead they publish in a journal where the papers are guaranteed to appear. They want to stay inside their little ghetto of delusion about science (ID).

 

[RealityCheck01]

To illustrate the bad citations you have given, stevevw, have a look at:

Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins

This is a post on a forum containing a January 22, 2015 blog post by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute. Casey Luskin is an attorney not a biologist. He has a long string of invalid blog posts about evolution documented on the Sandwalk blog by Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto

For example, the latest is Another successful prediction of Intelligent Desing Creationism?

...
I don't recall that ID predicted codon bias back in the early 1980s. Do you?

And I don't recall a lot of angst at the time because this was a big problem for Darwinian evolution.

The lie in Luskin's post is the title - an in-house journal is not a peer reviewed journal. Peer review is the process of multiple, usually anonymous, independent experts in a field reviewing a paper.

Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe (authors of the papers mentioned in the post) and Luskin wrote a book arguing that "that humans do not share a common ancestor, and that humanity has descended from the biblical Adam and Eve" !
That book is thoroughly reviewed here: Science and Human Origins - Chapter 1 review [etc.]

So we have scientists who are ready to deny common descent with its overwhelming evidence in order to support religious beliefs.

As for the science that Ann Gauger et al think they are doing:
Ann Gauger keeps digging

Ann Gauger and her creationist collaborator, Doug Axe, have been swapping amino acid residues in one kind of protein hoping to show that they cannot change it into another. They have deliberately ignored any clues that might be derived from assuming that evolution happened.
...
I wanted to discuss the logic of her argument that evolution can't happen so I posted a comment on the same day that her post appeared [A creationist argument against the evolution of new enzymes]. I outlined a more reasonable argument in support of the evolution of two enzymes with different functions from a common promiscuous ancestor. Here's my reasoning ...

 

[RealityCheck01]

Why do scientists not doubt the strong evidence for the common descent of humans and chimpanzees and other apes, stevevw?
One very good bit of evidence is endogenous retrovirus

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses. They are abundant in the genomes of jawed vertebrates and they occupy as much as 4.9% of the human genome.[1]

Retroviruses insert themselves into DNA in cells.
Some retroviruses insert themselves into DNA in germline cells that produce eggs and sperm and become endogenous retroviruses (ERV)
If you have DNA from a chimpanzee that contains an ERV X and it appears in human DNA then either
* There was a rare double insertion event in the same location eek in both chimpanzees and humans or
* There was a single insertion event in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.
But there is not just one ERV!

Thus: Knockdown argument for Pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists

So, scientists have actually conducted this exact study, and here are the results.
1) 99.9% of ERVs in humans, are shared in identical loci (loci=a specific location in a genome) to those in the chimpanzee genome. This means less than 100 of the 200,000 ERVs in humans are lineage specific, and the rest necessitate being passed down from our common ancestor with chimpanzees.
(Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses )

2) And when the mutations of ERV insertions that are in identical loci are examined, even the mutations on the shared ERVs are found to be identical …and just as with the distribution of ERVs, some shared mutations within a single shared ERV fall into nested hierarchies. (Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences)