DNA preserves the integrity of its program

[pshun2404]

Is this 430,000 year old skull human or not? Or this one?

Can't be human because it does not fit the 200,000 year hypothesis? Is that called objectivity?

 

[PsychoSarah]

There was a big change in the climate and atmosphere at the time Pangea began to break up.

Which happened about 200 million years ago.

As the dinosaurs began to decrease the mammals began to increase.

There weren't any mammals 200 million years ago. Mammals appeared about 40 million years after Pangea split apart, and around the time it did split, the largest dinosaurs didn't even exist yet.

 

[PsychoSarah]

View attachment 210911

Is this 430,000 year old skull human or not? Or this one?

Can't be human because it does not fit the 200,000 year hypothesis? Is that called objectivity?

-_- one Google image search later.
Hoyo Negro, Mexico | CHEI
The second one is nicknamed Naia, by the way, and isn't even 20,000 years old. Whatever source gave you that number, it made it up.

Also, the first skull is not from our species. O grupo dos neandertais distingue-se por mandíbulas e dentes fortes

I'll translate that source for you:
By digging a 430,000-year-old pile of bones in a cave in the mountains of northern Spain, a group of researchers has discovered more than 6,500 bones of at least 28 different individuals. The 17 skulls discovered, despite similarities to Neanderthals, appear to belong to a previous species or subspecies, a study published on Thursday showed .

The bones were removed from Sima de los Huesos (bone abyss in Portuguese), a crevice where possibly deposited the dead, located in the mountains of Atapuerca - an archaeological site classified as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, , Science and Culture).

Individuals exhibit a number of common features with Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) - strong teeth and jaws and a nose designed forward. In fact, it is the oldest fossils to present these characteristics. However, they have a mound of bones in the back of the skull common to all Neanderthals, says the statement of the press.

The specialization in chewing presented by both Neanderthals and the now discovered pre-Neanderthal specimens separates this group from the remaining hominins (subfamily to which modern man belongs), says Juan Luis Arsuga, researcher at the UCM-ISCIII Joint Center for Research on Evolution and Human Behavior in Madrid, and other team responsible for the investigation. "We think it's because they use their mouths as a 'third hand' or because they use their front teeth to grab and pull things, " the investigator tells The Guardian.

Still, the 17 skulls analyzed were distinct from those of Homo heidelbergensis, a contemporary species previously described in the same archaeological site, according to The Washington Post.

Later, in the lineage of Neanderthals, the brain evolved and increased in size, at the same time, but not in the same way, as the brain of Homo sapiens (modern man). The new group of hominines found in Sima de los Huesos shows that in the evolution of man there were several species related to each other, which probably competed to survive.

 

[pshun2404]

Was the early human skull (no. 2) a victim of murder?

Is this the world's oldest MURDER case? 430,000-year-old skull was struck twice before being dumped in the 'Pit of Bones' | Daily Mail Online

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Was the early human skull (no. 2) a victim of murder?

Is this the world's oldest MURDER case? 430,000-year-old skull was struck twice before being dumped in the 'Pit of Bones' | Daily Mail Online

Looks like it.... probably not worth prosecuting though, perpetrator would be hard to track down now they've gone underground....

 

[pshun2404]

Looks like it.... probably not worth prosecuting though, perpetrator would be hard to track down now they've gone underground....

Ha ha ha! But this may shed new light on the purpose of bone pits in those days.

 

[gaara4158]

How does this affect the evolutionary time line? Is there enough life permitting time on earth to allow for enough random mutations given the natural tendency of life to greatly counteract those mutations? I wonder if anyone has done the calculations.

We’re not really equipped to comprehend just how long 4 billion years is. It’s plenty of time.

 

[pshun2404]

Looks like it.... probably not worth prosecuting though, perpetrator would be hard to track down now they've gone underground....

Maybe we could dig up a few witnesses?

 

[pshun2404]

-_- one Google image search later.
Hoyo Negro, Mexico | CHEI
The second one is nicknamed Naia, by the way, and isn't even 20,000 years old. Whatever source gave you that number, it made it up.

Also, the first skull is not from our species. O grupo dos neandertais distingue-se por mandíbulas e dentes fortes

I'll translate that source for you:
By digging a 430,000-year-old pile of bones in a cave in the mountains of northern Spain, a group of researchers has discovered more than 6,500 bones of at least 28 different individuals. The 17 skulls discovered, despite similarities to Neanderthals, appear to belong to a previous species or subspecies, a study published on Thursday showed .

The bones were removed from Sima de los Huesos (bone abyss in Portuguese), a crevice where possibly deposited the dead, located in the mountains of Atapuerca - an archaeological site classified as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, , Science and Culture).

Individuals exhibit a number of common features with Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) - strong teeth and jaws and a nose designed forward. In fact, it is the oldest fossils to present these characteristics. However, they have a mound of bones in the back of the skull common to all Neanderthals, says the statement of the press.

The specialization in chewing presented by both Neanderthals and the now discovered pre-Neanderthal specimens separates this group from the remaining hominins (subfamily to which modern man belongs), says Juan Luis Arsuga, researcher at the UCM-ISCIII Joint Center for Research on Evolution and Human Behavior in Madrid, and other team responsible for the investigation. "We think it's because they use their mouths as a 'third hand' or because they use their front teeth to grab and pull things, " the investigator tells The Guardian.

Still, the 17 skulls analyzed were distinct from those of Homo heidelbergensis, a contemporary species previously described in the same archaeological site, according to The Washington Post.

Later, in the lineage of Neanderthals, the brain evolved and increased in size, at the same time, but not in the same way, as the brain of Homo sapiens (modern man). The new group of hominines found in Sima de los Huesos shows that in the evolution of man there were several species related to each other, which probably competed to survive.

"The second one is nicknamed Naia, by the way, and isn't even 20,000 years old. Whatever source gave you that number, it made it up."

Damn Smithsonian!!! Who would trust anything they say...I mean Hoya Negro near Yucatan definitely proves they are wrong about these skulls from Spain...wow imagine me falling for that deception...

And yeah this mix of Neandertal and Denisovan did display some slightly smaller cranial capacities (a little larger than 1200 cc's) but not out of range for some modern humans. Perhaps this variety of early human was just smaller (like many African sub-species) and many may just be younger people (early teens perhaps).

However different "species" do not socially/sexually interact producing fertile offspring yet we see evidence of such interaction here because a subspecies is just a variety of the same "species"...

 

[tas8831]

If you want to discuss Tik open a separate thread...so we can talk about the difference between the actual data versus the assumptions.

I did.


And amazingly....

 

[tas8831]

Not ignoring anything. We could have a hearty exchange of many posts regarding opinions about Tik, but what does that have to do with the subject of this thread?

Seeing as how you brought it up, starting here:

"That over time fish became amphibians (or amphibians into reptiles)"

and later (and this is hilarious):

A conclusion derived from fossil observations and genetic similarity. It's not simply an opinion.

Again it IS an opinion! There are ZERO fossil examples of fibians or amphibish anywhere. No line of fossil finds demonstrating fish BECOMING amphibians. All living things share DNA in common but one can interpret this as merely similarity because we all living things on earth share similarity at this level, all being composed of three base sequences (in various possible configurations) of a four letter coding system. This is the structural basis of forms that live. The conclusion that this implies lineage is

a) a premise based on a presupposition (hence the desire) that the hypothesis is true (or obvious according to some)

b) the hypothesis being believed and accepted as truth before any such so-called evidence was produced influences the interpretation to fit the theoretical premise
​

I won't take the time to correct you on your naive definition of "presupposition", but you later went on:

I've heard creationists say that before, and I show them Tiktaalik, and they say "oh no, that's not becoming something new, it's a complete creature". I have no idea why some people think an organism that is transitioning into another wouldn't be "complete", they have to survive and reproduce over many generations people, and all the body parts evolve together, so it wouldn't even make sense for an organism to be from the waist down reptile and from the waist up amphibian.

So sad you have been fooled! Have you ever seen what we actually found for the fossil? You could not possibly conclude as you have done, with any sense of assurance if you had. What we found was only mostly the head of the creature and some of the top of the body, and IT was quite flattened and splintered.​

So you thought it relevant enough to post about it, but now you are pulling your other main dodge - 'how is this relevant to this thread'..

Apparently DNA does preserve its integrity (not perfectly), however such things as DNA rearrangement show us that at a primary level it strives to conserve its original pattern as much as possible.

DNA does not strive to do anything.

DNA does not 'preserve its own integrity.'

That language belies an actual presupposition - yours.

Know what it is?

 

[tas8831]

View attachment 210911

Is this 430,000 year old skull human or not? Or this one?

Can't be human because it does not fit the 200,000 year hypothesis? Is that called objectivity?

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Dodging on Tik (as well as ignoring the new thread) noted.

Seems that you don't even adhere to your own rules...

 

[tas8831]

Apparently 1 in every 1,000,000,000 that sticks around IS as well as biologically possible (and that's just replication errors)! And yet the integrity of the Human DNA program after more than a million years is still producing humans? Go figure! And oh my, the integrity of this bacterial DNA program is still producing those bacteria...hmmm!!!

Isn't it odd, then, that there are creationists that posit a mutation-caused human extinction event within the next few hundred to few thousand years... caused by "the Fall", of course. Joe Mastropaolo was a big 'Fall=mutation=extinction' doomsayer. YEC.

So, God gave us a curse of mutation=extinction, but then gave us a few mechanisms to correct at least some of the mutations. What a Guy!

 

[tas8831]

It is no wonder we are inundated with fake news when we look at all the fake & false science people invent to try and promote their corrupted agenda.

Like that guy that accuses people of anti-Semitism (with no consequences) when they use his own words to prove that he is a sad liar?

The guy that dismisses his bible tales by claiming that Adam was just some guy in Judea or whatever and was NOT the first Created human...

 

[tas8831]

Yet only...if this intelligent, honest, adult male, who did read what you posted, had produced such a post, I would have received the accusation that I was quote mining from articles that are "way too old" used only to support my view. Then accused of getting my perspective from some creationist websites, compared to other topically unrelated threads, couched in subtle insults of my person or intelligence...

Such snowflakery...

Your person and your intelligence are called into question based upon your own repeated actions that you still refuse to admit to, despite voluminous irrefutable evidence tot he contrary.

but that's okay, I understand. But thanks I did enjoy them.

If you 'enjoyed' the papers, I conclude that you enjoyed misrepresenting them?

Your 'bacteria still bacteria', 'mice still mice' quips prove that.







Concession accepted. Please no longer lie about molecular phylogenetics being "guesses" and the like, for you must know by now that I WILL call you out, with documentation. Just like the several times I called out your plagiarism and quote altering.

All to support your worldview. How sad...

I find they do not do this with bad intention, they actually believe their presuppositions to be true.

Funny, Morris has the same basic presuppositions that you do, does he not?

 

[PsychoSarah]

"The second one is nicknamed Naia, by the way, and isn't even 20,000 years old. Whatever source gave you that number, it made it up."

Damn Smithsonian!!! Who would trust anything they say...I mean Hoya Negro near Yucatan definitely proves they are wrong about these skulls from Spain...wow imagine me falling for that deception...

Scientific American Ancient Bones Reveal Girl's Tough Life in Early Americas

The Smithsonian magazine... DNA From 12,000-Year-Old Skeleton Helps Answer the Question: Who Were the First Americans? | Science | Smithsonian

I actually can't find anything on this skull on the Smithsonian main site. Perhaps you could link it? They might have a typo, you know. Every other source I find says that Naia is 12,000-13,000 years old.

And yeah this mix of Neandertal and Denisovan did display some slightly smaller cranial capacities (a little larger than 1200 cc's) but not out of range for some modern humans. Perhaps this variety of early human was just smaller (like many African sub-species) and many may just be younger people (early teens perhaps).

We can tell the difference between children and adult bones of our species, as well as other members of the same genus. Plus, the brain reaches 99% of its maximum size by the age of 12.

However different "species" do not socially/sexually interact producing fertile offspring yet we see evidence of such interaction here because a subspecies is just a variety of the same "species"...

There is immense evidence that there was reduced fertility between the offspring of Neanderthals and our species, such as the fact that the lack of any mitochondrial Neanderthal DNA being present in our species, yet we have some Neanderthal genes in some populations. This means that either female Neanderthals and male Homo sapiens were incompatible for breeding, or that female children of the cross were infertile. I honestly don't know enough about Denisovans to comment, though, I'll do some research on that when I have the time. However, neither of these groups are considered the same species as ourselves (considering Neanderthals such is a wingnut position, and the relatedness of Denisovans to us has yet to be determined).

 

[pshun2404]

I did.


And amazingly....

Awesome! I will check it out.

 

[pshun2404]

Such snowflakery...

Your person and your intelligence are called into question based upon your own repeated actions that you still refuse to admit to, despite voluminous irrefutable evidence tot he contrary.

If you 'enjoyed' the papers, I conclude that you enjoyed misrepresenting them?

Your 'bacteria still bacteria', 'mice still mice' quips prove that.

Concession accepted. Please no longer lie about molecular phylogenetics being "guesses" and the like, for you must know by now that I WILL call you out, with documentation. Just like the several times I called out your plagiarism and quote altering.

All to support your worldview. How sad...

Funny, Morris has the same basic presuppositions that you do, does he not?

"Funny, Morris has the same basic presuppositions that you do, does he not?"

Not that I am aware of, but probably a few, as if explored we probably share a few as well!

 

[pshun2404]

Awesome! I will check it out.

Sorry! I do not see one on here...

 

[tas8831]

"Funny, Morris has the same basic presuppositions that you do, does he not?"

Not that I am aware of, but probably a few, as if explored we probably share a few as well!

I have written several times that what creationists ignore in posts says much about them...


"Your person and your intelligence are called into question based upon your own repeated actions that you still refuse to admit to, despite voluminous irrefutable evidence tot he contrary.

If you 'enjoyed' the papers, I conclude that you enjoyed misrepresenting them?

Your 'bacteria still bacteria', 'mice still mice' quips prove that.

Concession accepted. Please no longer lie about molecular phylogenetics being "guesses" and the like, for you must know by now that I WILL call you out, with documentation. Just like the several times I called out your plagiarism and quote altering.

All to support your worldview. How sad..."