Posted on 09/03/2011 6:15:38 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Sharing the results of a massive, worldwide study, geneticist Svante Pääbo shows the DNA proof that early humans mated with Neanderthals after we moved out of Africa. (Yes, many of us have Neanderthal DNA.) He also shows how a tiny bone from a baby finger was enough to identify a whole new humanoid species. Svante Pääbo explores human genetic evolution by analyzing DNA extracted from ancient sources, including mummies, an Ice Age hunter and the bone fragments of Neanderthals.
(Excerpt) Read more at exchangemagazine.com ...
I usually stay out of the creation/evolution debates. The last time I jumped into one was just to point out that I really dislike the mischaracterizing of scientists as lunatics trying to foist off some new-age style beliefs in the guise of science, and got drawn far more into the discussion than I really would like.
This thread, however, does not seem to be posted as a creation/evolution thread, but was talking about the science itself. And I'll never hesitate to jump into a discussion about science. In this case, it's the non-scientists jumping in that started a debate. Most of the scientific threads posted on FR do not, in fact, end up as debates.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human-part-3.html
Most of the scientific threads posted on FR do not, in fact, end up as debates.
That's fascinating, or, well, it would be if I put stock in the validity of the various dating systems used.
That's because more of the scientific threads posted on FR are about actual science, instead of evolution.
Sort of invalidates the whole point to talking about "species."
With a technique called the molecular clock, scientists can now find out. That's because D.N.A. mutates, or changes, at a surprisingly regular rate. By counting the differences in the genetic code of Neanderthal and ourselves, simply comparing the As, Ts, Cs and Gs in our D.N.A., scientists can calculate how long the two species have been diverging.
SVANTE PÄÄBO: We can then estimate when there was a common ancestor population, where some individuals went on to become modern humans, some went on to become Neanderthals. It's in the order of say 300,000 to 400,000 years ago.
Interesting contradiction of the premise of the "molecular clock" techique a few minutes later:
SPENCER WELLS: The rate of evolution at the genomic level has increased over the last 10,000 years, and it will probably continue over the next few thousand years.
Here’s how these exchanges go:
Combatant #1: The “science” shows X. [scare quotes need to be sprinkled liberally].
Combatant #2: No, the science shows Not Y.
#1: Thank you for proving my point.
#2: You big dummy.
#1: You big dunderhead.
Why even start the “conversation”?
...And yea, I still watch PBS; as I well know, PBS Cares...
Not that I've seen. Most of the pure science threads remain pure science.
Thank you so much for letting me know that my chosen career is not in science, but in something else. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me as to what it is, exactly, that I actually do for a living? I mean, I'm constantly telling people that I'm a scientist. Since that cannot be true, I'd like to let them know what I really do for a living.
In reality, except for correcting gross mischaracterizations like the one I mentioned in an above post, I really don't care what you believe. If you genuinely believe that, somehow, a scientific theory invalidates religion, that is your belief. No amount of trying to persuade you otherwise is going to change that, and I honestly have no desire to try to dissuade you from that belief. The only real way your belief could have an effect on me is if, for some reason, religious fundamentalists took over in government and stopped funding any kind of research that acknowledges or uses the theory of evolution, or tried to force educators to teach biology as if the theory of evolution did not provide a central framework for understanding biology. Trying to force science to fit an ideology does not and cannot work. I see little chance of that happening (people support medical research far too strongly to let it be crippled like that); therefore, I have no interest in arguing with creationists.
You think your exchange with GourmetDan is just an aberration?
I second your idea! These threads get so ugly that it is almost painful to read them.
Pretty much so, yes. I was participating in a thread yesterday where the discussion pretty much stayed on topic of the thread, at least during the time I was posting on it. And it, too, was discussing human evolution.
I don't know, but I'm sure it's something that involves emotion, hyperbole, and anti-religious bigotry.
You have to always keep in mind the ebb and flow of the ice sheets and glaciers in Europe and Western Asia at the time.
Modern Europeans made it to Europe 35000 years back, then by 20,000 years ago there was a glacial maximum. Everyone was driven into unglaciated areas called "refugia". They lived there or further South until 14,000 years ago when it all melted.
The next 8,000 years were just one thing after another until about 6,000 years ago when someone figured out how to use "pictures" to show relationships. By 5,000 years go that'd advanced to where "pictures" were reflecting spoken language ~ a great advance.
It's been all downhill since then let me tell you.
Just to let everybody here know that the concept is rather stressed at the moment.
That, BTW, turned each and every salmon into an ENDANGERED SPECIES as far as law enforcement is concerned.
The salmon protectors are brutal in the application of the law so you have to be careful when you fish for wild salmon ~ because you are into "species endangerment", a grievous crime!
Well, anyway, some of this is like discussing the identity of the individual plant in deciduous trees. Some say it's the whole critter; others say just the leaves; and yet others say "only those leaves I can clone".
Pick any species, or family of critters of great economic value ~ you'll find the nomenklatura in there trying to define the words to frustrate your use of the animal or plant.
Amazingly it is a remarkably new field of study so nobody knows what about which or when ~ but it's there!
I think they're mostly into finding "where" ~ Fur Shur it caught the classical darwinists off their feet ~ but it did explain how you can make chickens grow teeth.
Currently the smart guys are digging into this whole new genetic control structure to see what it can do.
Obviously, from a political nature this is just in time ~ if "they" hadn't come up with a gene for gayness by the middle of the Obama regime, he'd cut off all scientific funding. Now, they can tell him and his funny little friends that it's probably in the "control structures" and it's just a matter of time until "they" find a methylation in just the right spot ~ and they'll be happy.
Speaking of residual genes left over since the very foundation of lizardly existence, we all have livers. Humans were once believed to have but a single gene type or allele but recent research reveals we have about 82 of them.
That discovery opened up opportunities for porphyria researchers beyond the dreams of avarice. Used to be they could just say "Hmm, alcohol or disease ~ make'm bad". Now, they have a veritable dictionary of terms they can apply to leave everyone mystified, but otherwise impressed.
I'm sorry, but misrepresenting my comments and responding with evolutionist talking points is not the same as answering the criticism with lucid responses.
"How can a scientist possibly apply "pre-existing knowledge after the fact," when the whole point of science is to reveal new knowledge?"
Oh really? Do you discover everything about an organism all over again every time you look at it?
"Really? You are so sure of that? I'm so glad I have you to tell me that the methodology I've been using throughout my whole entire scientific career doesn't actually work."
Really? Are you sure of that? You keep repeating that evolutionist talking point but never give examples of just how evolution has uniquely 'helped' you. We should just trust you, right? Typical 'scientific' response because the reality is so much less impressive than the claim.
"How about, instead of repeating creationist talking points, you try to learn (objectively!) something about the theory which you are trying to discredit. The only way to legitimately discredit it is through understanding it."
How about taking your own advice instead of repeating evolutionist talking points.
I would be most happy to teach you to look at 'evolution' objectively but you refuse to engage. You simply repeat the evolutionist mantra that 'nothing in biology makes sense without evolution' without actually showing how that is true. Of course, the truth would be so much less convincing than just saying, "I am a scientist and you should believe me." Yes, I know all about 'scientists'.
I asked you how the biological observations would differ between an 'evolved' biology and a biology that was created with a broad ability to adapt and you responded with a strawman IIRC. You are so committed to evolution that you simply couldn't conceptually engage any new paradigm.
Evolution is discredited by people who do understand it. It is only the true believers who set up strawman alternatives and regurgitate evolutionist talking points that still believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.