stevevw
inquisitive
[FONT="]Loudmouth[/FONT]
[FONT="]
There are some modern humans who display some of the features of Homo Erectus. As I said it wont be all of those features together but there will be some here and there. Erectus is older so these features would have dwindled out. But we can see the remnants of their shapes and features still in humans today. But you can see more of the Neanderthal features because they are more recent. Esp in the native people of the world.
Despite you disagreeing why would we see such a difference in humans in the natives of today from other humans that live in the cities. Why do we see the neandathal features in some of these natives like the Aborigines or the Inuits for example. There is a definite difference which shows that modern humans have a great range of variation. Why do we see modern looking humans in times where there was suppose to be ancient looking humans. Why do we see ancient looking humans in times where there are only suppose to be ancient looking humans. This shows that even going back in time there was a great amount of variation from ancient robust looking humans to modern looking humans together at the same time.
The riddle surrounds the robust physical characteristics of the Kow Swamp people that some experts suggest links them to earlier more archaic humans such as Homo erectus found in Indonesia. How could people with such archaic traits exist only 900015,000 years ago when more modern-looking and gracile people had been at Lake Mungo in south-west NSW 40,000 years ago?
[FONT="]Kow Swamp remains are re-dated to more than 20,000 years old : News : The University of Melbourne[/FONT]
So these Kow swamp people look like Homo erectus but only lived around 9,000 years ago. So this is an example of the erectus features in modern humans.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.
[/FONT]
Mungo Man - Turning Evolution Upside Down
So here we have an example of a modern looking human in a time where the features of humans found were robust. So once again we see the possible great range of variation that was possible with humans living at the same time. Not only that Mungo man didn't have any mitochondrial DNA.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? : Nature News & Comment
The Phylogenetic Tree Topples
https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2006/3/the-phylogenetic-tree-topples
Mutations Can't Produce Upward Evolution!
[FONT="]Mutations Can't Produce Upward Evolution! - English pravda.ru[/FONT]
Top Evolutionist questions role of Natural Selection
[FONT="]Top Evolutionist questions role of Natural Selection[/FONT]
Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution
[FONT="]Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution[/FONT]
Biologic Institute's Groundbreaking Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins
[FONT="]Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins[/FONT]
Within the human DNA they are finding traces of other groups of humans. They call them different names like Neanderthals or Devonian's but they are just humans who were isolated in groups and developed their own DNA. So when they cross bred we can still see traces of the other groups DNA there. But it is being blended out over time. There maybe several groups of humans that was around to being with. Its the same for the different races. Within all the races will be larger groups of races like all the Asians and all the Africans and Europeans.
"If you are 2 percent Neanderthal and I'm 2 percent Neanderthal, we might not have the same Neanderthal DNA between us," said study lead author Benjamin Vernot, a population geneticist at the University of Washington in Seattle. "We might have inherited different portions of the Neanderthal genome.
This logic suggested a significant portion of the Neanderthal genome might survive within the genomes of present-day humans. Past calculations suggested that anywhere from 35 to 70 percent of the Neanderthal genome could exist in modern people.
At least 20% of Neanderthal DNA Is in Humans
Plus it wasnt just the Neanderthals that we cross bred with. There were several other groups. So we have been very active in our past.
[FONT="]The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia : Article : Nature[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
Surprise! Your Cousin's a Sea Urchin
The sea urchin is surprisingly similar to humans," said co-director of the sea urchin sequencing project George Weinstock, of Baylor College of Medicine. "Sea urchins don't look any more like humans than fruit flies, but about 70 percent of sea urchin genes have a human counterpart whereas only about 40 percent of fruit fly genes do."
Surprise! Your Cousin's a Sea Urchin
Now look at that headline and read the write-up. This is from a science site. It is making out that we are so much alike sea urchins that their our cousins. And I thought the chimp was out cousin.
Here is another little bit of interesting info. It seems the simple sea sponge is more complicated than we thought. It even has the codes for muscle building when it doesnt even need it. Now why would it mutate these things if its just a simple sponge? Maybe this shows that all creatures have a vast ability in their genomes to call upon that has always been there. I mean why have all that extra stuff sitting there when all they needed was the simple codes for being a sponge. It would have been hard enough mutating random genetics just for the sponge let alone a whole bunch of un needed genetic info.
Sponge genome goes deep : Nature News
Now here is that chimp comparison. Its actually only 70% similar if you take all things into account.
To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genomes 3164.7 million letters align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is uselessjunk DNA. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.
Chimpanzee? - Reformatorisch Dagblad
[FONT="]
[/FONT]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.
There are some modern humans who display some of the features of Homo Erectus. As I said it wont be all of those features together but there will be some here and there. Erectus is older so these features would have dwindled out. But we can see the remnants of their shapes and features still in humans today. But you can see more of the Neanderthal features because they are more recent. Esp in the native people of the world.
Despite you disagreeing why would we see such a difference in humans in the natives of today from other humans that live in the cities. Why do we see the neandathal features in some of these natives like the Aborigines or the Inuits for example. There is a definite difference which shows that modern humans have a great range of variation. Why do we see modern looking humans in times where there was suppose to be ancient looking humans. Why do we see ancient looking humans in times where there are only suppose to be ancient looking humans. This shows that even going back in time there was a great amount of variation from ancient robust looking humans to modern looking humans together at the same time.
The riddle surrounds the robust physical characteristics of the Kow Swamp people that some experts suggest links them to earlier more archaic humans such as Homo erectus found in Indonesia. How could people with such archaic traits exist only 900015,000 years ago when more modern-looking and gracile people had been at Lake Mungo in south-west NSW 40,000 years ago?
[FONT="]Kow Swamp remains are re-dated to more than 20,000 years old : News : The University of Melbourne[/FONT]
So these Kow swamp people look like Homo erectus but only lived around 9,000 years ago. So this is an example of the erectus features in modern humans.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.
[/FONT]
Mungo Man - Turning Evolution Upside Down
So here we have an example of a modern looking human in a time where the features of humans found were robust. So once again we see the possible great range of variation that was possible with humans living at the same time. Not only that Mungo man didn't have any mitochondrial DNA.
I could say the same for you. See its all a matter of opinion and interpretation. You can show no evidence for Darwinian evolution either. But I believe the evidence that is coming out is contradicting Darwinian evolution and I have posted several links showing this. At the very least it casts doubts of the links that evolution has created. Anyway here is some evidence for what I am talking about which I have linked many times before.Then show us the evidence to back this claim. Stop claiming it and produce the data.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? : Nature News & Comment
The Phylogenetic Tree Topples
https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2006/3/the-phylogenetic-tree-topples
Mutations Can't Produce Upward Evolution!
[FONT="]Mutations Can't Produce Upward Evolution! - English pravda.ru[/FONT]
Top Evolutionist questions role of Natural Selection
[FONT="]Top Evolutionist questions role of Natural Selection[/FONT]
Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution
[FONT="]Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution[/FONT]
Biologic Institute's Groundbreaking Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins
[FONT="]Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins[/FONT]
No but what it shows is the great variations with the dog species. That is consistent with what I am saying about humans. If you look at all the dogs shapes they have a vast range of size and features.There is great variation among dogs. Does this mean that dogs are also human?
Within the human DNA they are finding traces of other groups of humans. They call them different names like Neanderthals or Devonian's but they are just humans who were isolated in groups and developed their own DNA. So when they cross bred we can still see traces of the other groups DNA there. But it is being blended out over time. There maybe several groups of humans that was around to being with. Its the same for the different races. Within all the races will be larger groups of races like all the Asians and all the Africans and Europeans.
No I am not ignoring anything. I am the one bringing up all these anomalies and new data that scientists are finding. Even they are not sure what is going on. The picture cannot be clearly mapped out as yet. But so far they will want to make the evidence fit a certain model being evolution. But the evidence can also support other models. There is an out of Africa model and there is a multi generational model where there were many groups of humans around the world that intermixed. But the many groups of human model can also be argued that it is showing a great variety of the one species. Its hard to believe that one line of humans evolved from apes let alone many.And now you are going to ignore the evidence altogether.
Then why do they say we could have had up to 70% of Neanderthal DNA in us. If they find a section of Neanderthal Genes in one group of modern humans of say 4%. Then they find a different section of Neanderthal DNA say 4% in another group. Both those different lots of genes add up to 8% of the Neanderthal genes because they are different parts of it in different groups. So you times that by all the bits of Neanderthal genes they have found in modern humans and you get a lot of pieces of the original Neanderthal DNA in all the modern groups of humans adding up to the 70% they are saying. The different groups had kept that particular section of genes while the other groups kept a different section. But it is all part of the same original Neanderthal DNA when added all together. That is how I understand it and that is how I believe they are explaining it.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.
"If you are 2 percent Neanderthal and I'm 2 percent Neanderthal, we might not have the same Neanderthal DNA between us," said study lead author Benjamin Vernot, a population geneticist at the University of Washington in Seattle. "We might have inherited different portions of the Neanderthal genome.
This logic suggested a significant portion of the Neanderthal genome might survive within the genomes of present-day humans. Past calculations suggested that anywhere from 35 to 70 percent of the Neanderthal genome could exist in modern people.
At least 20% of Neanderthal DNA Is in Humans
Plus it wasnt just the Neanderthals that we cross bred with. There were several other groups. So we have been very active in our past.
[FONT="]The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia : Article : Nature[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
No they dont. The evidence for this is even more contradictory.Those same studies link humans and chimps to a common ancestor, but you ignore those studies because it contradicts your beliefs.
No they dont. The evidence for this is even more contradictory.Those same studies link humans and chimps to a common ancestor, but you ignore those studies because it contradicts your beliefs.
Well so far they have found at least three groups that may have cross bred. There maybe more. They have found bits of the DNA of those groups all around the world in different groups of people. If it was such a small amount why would we have such a wide spread in nearly all of us. If we just mated with a small group in the corner of the world then that is where the DNA would end up. But its spread right across the globe. If it was such a small amount it would have been blended out by now. It seems the genetic evidence is supporting a larger role for these other groups of humans.Again, the genetic studies disprove your claim. There were separate populations with only rare cross breeding.
Like I said before I dont use any deception. I am merely quoting what the sites state. When they say that we are 70% like sponges in our genetics they dont say it is to do with any particular part of the DNA. They just state it like its an amazing discovery that we are so much like a sponge in our genetics. I am not a geneticist like I said so I rely on the experts. Which are not religious ones I might add? So if anyone is lying its the scientific sites that are outing out this info. I would say a lot of this info maybe new as they are sequencing the genomes of different animals so new info may come out.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.
Surprise! Your Cousin's a Sea Urchin
The sea urchin is surprisingly similar to humans," said co-director of the sea urchin sequencing project George Weinstock, of Baylor College of Medicine. "Sea urchins don't look any more like humans than fruit flies, but about 70 percent of sea urchin genes have a human counterpart whereas only about 40 percent of fruit fly genes do."
Surprise! Your Cousin's a Sea Urchin
Now look at that headline and read the write-up. This is from a science site. It is making out that we are so much alike sea urchins that their our cousins. And I thought the chimp was out cousin.
Here is another little bit of interesting info. It seems the simple sea sponge is more complicated than we thought. It even has the codes for muscle building when it doesnt even need it. Now why would it mutate these things if its just a simple sponge? Maybe this shows that all creatures have a vast ability in their genomes to call upon that has always been there. I mean why have all that extra stuff sitting there when all they needed was the simple codes for being a sponge. It would have been hard enough mutating random genetics just for the sponge let alone a whole bunch of un needed genetic info.
Sponge genome goes deep : Nature News
Now here is that chimp comparison. Its actually only 70% similar if you take all things into account.
To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genomes 3164.7 million letters align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is uselessjunk DNA. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.
Chimpanzee? - Reformatorisch Dagblad
Upvote
0