Posted on 03/18/2012 5:24:33 PM PDT by varmintman
Danny Venderamini's main site.
All Neanderthal images here courtesy of www.themandus.org
This thing starts off with Danny Vendramini figuring out something which should have been figured out 100 years ago i.e.. that (other than for the larger brain area) a Neanderthal skull is a near perfect match for ape profiles and a very bad match for one of ours:
That is consistent with what we know about Neanderthal DNA i.e. that it's no closer to ours than to an ape's. The funny thing is that Vendramini did not tell his artist to produce the world's scariest monster, the basic order was to start with Neanderthal skulls and skeletal bones and try to flesh them out using the assumption that what you had was a bipedal, carniverous ape with an 8" fur coat (like every other ice-age animal) and the big eyes which Neanderthal eye sockets suggest for nocturnal hunting, and possibly a slightly mean look on the thing's face. The fact that what turns up looks as bad as it does to us is probably, as Vendramini suggests, due to past bad experiences with it, sort of like the instinctive human reaction to spiders and snakes:
The 8" fur coat also explains why no Neanderthal needles have ever been found...
Without the fur coat:
Given the recent human population bottleneck, there is no way to believe that any modern human is related to this creature in any way other than for the possible re-use of low-level genetic components by an original designer or designers (the bottleneck says that if any human had any of this guy's genes we all would, not just Caucasians and East Asians), and likewise there is zero way to believe that any modern humans ever interbred with something like that. The image of the Neanderthal in popular culture and science turns out to be rubbish.
This thing was wiped out in some sort of a stone age world war and whoever wiped it out did the world a giant favor. Other than that, Danny Vendramini subscribes to a variant of the Gould/Eldredge flavor of evolutionism, nonetheless the scholarship involved in reconstructing what Neanderthals actually amounted to does not suffer from that.
Of course they did. That's the only way to make sense of the plethora of fossils showing various birds throughout geological history. The fact that they arose by evolution makes a heck of a lot more sense than a belief that they popped into existence fully formed.
Tell me this and I might at least listen:
You're claiming that creatures which had down feathers for insulation evolved into flying birds (including eagles). Flight feathers however resemble down feathers in no way, shape, or manner. A flight feather has interlocking barblets and hooks for structural strength (to hold the bird up in the air) which a down feather doesn't begin to have. If flight feathers evolved via any sort of mutation, then ALL of the creatures feathers would change into flight feathers since the creature had down feathers all over his body. Nonetheless the flight feathers only exist in the precise areas in which the eagle needs them, i.e. his wings.
How did flight feathers evolve only where the flying bird needs them? Why doesn't the eagle have flight feathers all over his whole body??
Look here for a drawing of various evolutionary stages of feathers.
Keep in mind that structures don't suddenly appear in the complex forms with which we are familiar. They appear in simple forms and gradually become more complex. The only requirement for that process is that the change is not deleterious; that it is neutral or advantageous for survival.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there is no evolutionary principle that precludes structures on different parts of the body having different appearances. If you would hypothesize, for instance, that a mutation in a flight feather would also appear in every other feather, you have to explain why you made that hypothesis, and support your explanation with a discussion of the genetics you think are involved. A mutation that affects feather development might not be in a feather gene--it could be in a gene that you don't even think is involved in feather development. I should also point out that there is no reason to think that feathers had either a flight or insulation function when they first appeared. Since they were probably modified scales, a likely function of early feathers would have been for protection (like the scales).
One more thing, and that is that you seem to think a feather is incredibly complicated. It isn't, really. If you look close, you will see that it is essentially one basic structure repeated dozens of times on each side of the central support, in a fractal pattern. Fractals and repetition are extremely common developmental themes. You see that kind of repetition in your limbs (longer bones of the arm > shorter bones of the hand > three progressively shorter bones of the fingers), your ribs, the rings of earthworms, scales of fish, plant leaves, etc. That repetition means that the structures actually aren't as complex as you might think.
As for why the eagle doesn't have flight feathers all over its body--well, that's because it doesn't have wing-differentiated cells all over its body.
All I saw there was BS. Flight feathers on arms which weren't wings yet would serve zero purpose other than getting torn off or damaged as the creature tried to use its arms for grasping or whatever, leaving the creature colder than when he had down feathers in the first place. Natural selection itself would mitigate against it.
How about learning something about evolution and the way it works before you try to critique it? Survival of the fittest does not refer to what *you* think is most fit, but to whatever best enables survival of the species in question. If a feather is such a complicated structure that it couldn't possibly have evolved, then how do you explain that a single-cell zygote without any structure becomes, within weeks, a fully formed bird with feathers?
There were, FYI, several species of feathered dinosaurs besides birds. Here is a nice article, complete with fossil pictures and schematics of many feather types that evolved. It is apparently course literature for an upper level university biology class, but I think it is readable.
Evolution is a brain-dead ideological doctrine which teaches that your neighbor is a meat byproduct of random events and processes. It was the philosophical cornerstone of the Nazi and Communist systems and the various eugenics programs and arms races which led to the two world wars.
Is there something else I need to know about it?
You have to think about that one image a bit for what it means to sink in:
You read that Neanderthals were normally around 5-6 and there's a tendency to wonder how strong somebody 5-6 could be since we think in human terms. But the human in that figure at 5-6 would be ballpark for the size and weight of a lightweight or junior welter prizefighter i.e. around 140 lbs and the Neanderthal appears to be at least double that so that you're looking at a creature which was typically around 5-6 and 300 lbs without being fat or overweight; the human race doesn't include anything like that.
No.
What is it that you do not understand when I say I haven't a clue how all we observe came to be? I don't think we have the capability to understand any more than a young child can understand where babies come from. Introducing extraterrestrials just pushes the question back in time.
And, pray tell, what exactly is your "science degree" in?
I have degrees in math and physics.
As for the chromosome number, that isn't as important as having the proper number of genes, and that those genes exist in pairs.
Just because you type the words doesn't make them true. We have no idea how one species might morph into another, but we do know that each species has a characteristic number of chromosomes. The title Origin of Species and first paragraph of it imply that Darwin will have much to say about speciation. Yet his magnum opus remains largely silent on the "mystery of mysteries," and the little it does say about this mystery is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled or wrong.
ML/NJ
You need to get out more.
: )
If you add 'smashing their eggs before they are hatched', that description includes humans.
Again the funny thing is that the Neanderthal has over the past few decades been elevated to the status of a sort of a libtard/evoloser poster child or icon, and he turns out to be basically just an ape with a spear.
I do not typically type anything that I am not already certain of, through my training and experience (PhD, biochemistry and molecular biology). And before I type it, I verify it. The reason I said what I did about the number of chromosomes not being as important as that the genes exist in pairs, is because of what I know about genetic aberrations. Most trisomies are lethal, not because of the extra chromosome, but because of the extra copy of so many genes. Many genes are only expressed off of one chromosome, with the copy on the other chromosome turned off. Adding an extra chromosome effectively doubles the expression levels of those genes, with what can be devastating effect.
Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans 23 pairs. Yet our DNA is ~98% identical, and most of the differences are not in coding regions. Apparently, two early chromosomes combined in humans, giving us approximately the same number of genes as apes, despite having one less chromosome.
As for the other part, how one species morphs into another? All species constantly undergo a certain level of genetic change. It is unavoidable. During the process of meiosis, DNA undergoes some pretty drastic rearrangement, in addition to the normal mutations that always affect DNA. Since these random rearrangements and mutations are mixed into the population through the normal reproductive process, all it takes for speciation to occur is for the population to be split, perhaps by a geological event. At that point, the populations are still undergoing random mutations--but they aren't the same mutations in both populations. Given a long enough separation, the original species becomes two species. This process has been characterized in quite a bit of detail.
That is an anti-survival behavior. Whatever genetic traits lead to it are, I believe, being eliminated.
All hail the almighty god of evolution. Able to eliminate genetic traits that lead to 'anti-survival behavior' as well as produce them in the first place. All conveniently available on-demand as required for the next 'just so' story. There truly is nothing that evolution can't do.
Well, except that it doesn't seem to be able to stop adherents from constantly begging the question and engaging in the most ridiculous logical fallacies offered as apologetics.
Well, except that it doesn't seem to be able to stop adherents from constantly begging the question and engaging in the most ridiculous logical fallacies offered as apologetics.
Ah, I see, trying to be sarcastic as a means of attempting to discredit something of which you have no understanding nor desire to understand. Yet, despite your comment being a poor attempt at sarcasm, it does highlight the beauty and robustness of the theory of evolution. The ToE can be considered the framework of modern biology. Its suitability as both an explanatory framework and predictive tool underscores just how useful and robust that theory is. A theory that didn't actual explain or predict anything would be useless, and would not, by definition, be a theory.
Of course I did not expound on the many observations and conclusions I have made concerning the abortion industry, its clients, the documented deleterious effects of abortion on future (live) child-bearing, etc. But I used those facts to make a logical deduction (another concept you have shown difficulty with) about the future consequences of the widespread use of abortion as birth control, which I stated in those two sentences.
If you like, I could discuss in detail exactly what my considerations were in making that evolutionary prediction vis-à-vis abortion. But that would be a VERY long post, and is not really pertinent to the topic of this thread, which is about some non-science-trained artist's unscientific representations of one of our close ancestors.
Disclaimer: I do not know that the person I made that comment to was specifically thinking of abortion in their original comment. My response to them was about abortion, which I did not specifically state.
Well, excuse me. We all seem to have our alternate realities, and some of these we call religions. Yours is no different than mine which states that Moses got the Torah at Sinai. There are schools all over the world filled with intelligent folks who believe this either based upon faith or some reasonable logic and then they weave a reality based upon this. The Muslims do the same thing. Your Bible is Darwin.
Unfortunately for you as I said before, or really I plagiarized before the little Darwin says about speciation "is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled or wrong." This actually comes directly from Coyne and Orr's text, Speciation.
Given a long enough separation, the original species becomes two species.
Speciation is, of course, all any of us "deniers" are talking about when we say that evolution is obviously false. No denies that evolution can take place within a species, as it did with man over the millennia when our different races evolved. But then intercontinental travel began and mirabile dictu we were still all able to breed with one another. I guess you will tell me that our separation wasn't long enough. We all still have our 23 chromosome pairs if we are normal and hope to have grandchildren.
Were there really any gradual morphing of one species into another we would see large numbers of species with mixed chromosome (e.g. 22 and 23 pairs, or 7 and 8) counts but we don't. It's really just simple math. Maybe your PhD didn't include enough if it?
The real evidence that evolution is a fraud comes from evolution textbooks themselves. As I have posted previously, I have Freeman and Herron's Evolutionary Analysis 3rd Edition among other texts. It has 802 pages. It has one chapter on speciation, which is all we're talking about here. The chapter begins on page 583. It runs on to page 614. The rest is primarily fluff, not very different from the stuff in Genesis where Jacob breeds spotted goats. The index references to speciation are: 37, 102-3, 574, 583-614. In other words a book on evolution has 36 pages out of 802 pages which even attempt to touch on the topic. I haven't looked at the speciation chapter recently but my recollection is that it doesn't do much to explain how a new animal species might arise; and answers no questions like the ones I raise here. If you think this is science, you should return your degrees.
ML/NJ
If you *genuinely* have a degree in physics, then I assume you are aware of the objective nature of science. There are no "alternate realities" or other New-Age crap, and my job, like that of any scientist, is to catalog and characterize the physical world around us. My profession is not my religion; don't insult me or my intelligence by saying it is. Darwin was a scientist; he was neither a bible nor even a prophet.
I know that at least one of the charlatans who promote young-earth literal creationism constantly speaks of the "religion of Darwin". The glib repetition ad nauseum of that lie does not make it true.
Unfortunately for you as I said before, or really I plagiarized before the little Darwin says about speciation "is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled or wrong." This actually comes directly from Coyne and Orr's text, Speciation.
Coincidentally, I just happened to find a quote by Coyne discussing how he was quote-mined to give the false impression that he questions the theoretically/evidentiary basis of evolution when he does not:
I am painfully and personally acquainted with Behe's penchant for fiddling with quotations [quote omitted]. Apparently I am one of those faint-hearted biologists who see the errors of Darwinism but cannot admit it. This was news to me. I am surely numbered among the more orthodox evolutionists, and hardly see our field as fatally flawed. The paper in question (actually by Allen Orr and myself)3 addresses a technical debate among evolutionists: are adaptations based on a lot of small genetic mutations (the traditional neo-Darwinian view), a few big mutations, or some mixture of the two? We concluded that although there was not much evidence one way or the other, there were indications that mutations of large effect might occasionally be important. Our paper cast no doubt whatever on the existence of evolution or the ability of natural selection to explain adaptations. ...
By inserting the period (and removing the sentence from its neighbors), Behe has twisted our meaning. Our discussion of one aspect of Darwinism -- the relative size of adaptive mutations -- has suddenly become a critique of the entire Darwinian enterprise. This is not sloppy scholarship, but deliberate distortion.
Quote mining is a despicable practice. It is bad enough to lie about people, but to cherry-pick their words to make it appear that they said things they did not say is extremely dishonest.
No denies that evolution can take place within a species, as it did with man over the millennia when our different races evolved. But then intercontinental travel began and mirabile dictu we were still all able to breed with one another. I guess you will tell me that our separation wasn't long enough. We all still have our 23 chromosome pairs if we are normal and hope to have grandchildren.
It is utterly ludicrous to claim that the process of evolution occurs by the exact mechanisms that scientists have described all along, except that it's "adaptation" and really happens several orders of magnitude faster than actual evolutionary processes occur in order to fit it into a literal creation 6000 year time-frame, while simultaneously denying that evolution occurs. Tell me, book and verse, where is this process of "adaptation" discussed in the Bible? And is it discussed in enough detail to make it useful in experimental design? I'll just say it: the "creation science" invention of rapid "adaptation" is neither scientific nor biblical.
Were there really any gradual morphing of one species into another we would see large numbers of species with mixed chromosome (e.g. 22 and 23 pairs, or 7 and 8) counts but we don't. It's really just simple math. Maybe your PhD didn't include enough if it?
And, once again, you're placing WAY too much importance on chromosome number. Chromosome number does not make us human. Gene copy number and expression levels of genes do. This article, written by a biology professor, explains how chromosome number can change without significantly affecting gene copy number. And, before you get the idea that this mechanism is theoretical or hypothetical, I will point out that these mechanisms have been observed many times.
As I have posted previously, I have Freeman and Herron's Evolutionary Analysis 3rd Edition among other texts. It has 802 pages. It has one chapter on speciation, which is all we're talking about here. The chapter begins on page 583. It runs on to page 614. The rest is primarily fluff, not very different from the stuff in Genesis where Jacob breeds spotted goats. The index references to speciation are: 37, 102-3, 574, 583-614. In other words a book on evolution has 36 pages out of 802 pages which even attempt to touch on the topic. I haven't looked at the speciation chapter recently but my recollection is that it doesn't do much to explain how a new animal species might arise; and answers no questions like the ones I raise here. If you think this is science, you should return your degrees.
You may have the book, but do you have the requisite background knowledge to understand it? I could not find excerpts from the book on Google, probably because its publisher wants to guarantee they'll always get a premium price for selling to a captive audience. What I did find out was that this is a textbook meant for upper level biology students, meaning that they are already familiar with topics such as genetics, anatomy, metabolism, etc. Since I found a syllabus for a course using that book being taught right now at U of WI, I was able to examine it and the linked lecture slides to get an idea of what is actually written in the book. I saw that quite a bit of the book, several chapters, in fact, are devoted to speciation. I surmise that, being unfamiliar with the discipline of biology, you simply don't recognize the terminology being used. As far as I can tell, the bulk of the book is spent familiarizing students with the various mechanisms of evolution (genetic drift, mutation, recombination, selection, etc.), before tying them all together in the "big-picture" view of speciation. What I did NOT see was the book trying to "gloss over" speciation, as your lack of familiarity with the subject led you to believe it does. If you *genuinely* want to understand how speciation occurs, read that book, cover to cover. Or, better yet, start taking some classes on biology so that you get the necessary background.
Of course I think biology is science, and no, I'm not about to "turn in" my degrees just because reality conflicts with the Biblical creation story.
You impute to me views which I deny holding and question my honesty.
I do know who Behe is and even have one of his books, but I know nothing of his quoting Coyne or Orr or both. I have the Coyne and Orr text I referred to, because I am genuinely interested in learning what I can about the topic of speciation. The quote I "cherry-picked" sort of hits one right between the eyes as it is the opening sentence of Chapter One of Speciation. My marginal note which I wrote when I first read this was/is Like what are Darwin's "Immense Achievements" if he didn't have anything to say about speciation? The phrase "immense achievements" is in the second sentence which I didn't bother to quote before but here it is: "The study of speciation is thus one of the few areas of evolutionary biology not overshadowed by Darwin's immense achievements."
You're quite correct that science is supposed to be objective. When contradictions arise in chemistry or physics the underlying theory is discarded (except to my mind when it comes to the concept of tunneling). But when it comes to "evolution" the theory just turns into a bigger kludge.
It is utterly ludicrous to claim that the process of evolution occurs by the exact mechanisms that scientists have described all along
Are these the same objective scientists you referred to previously?
I really don't know how to say things better than I already have. I ask you why there has been no separation in the human species given the obvious breeding populations into which we were, until recently, separated and you start talking about 6000 years and creation science.
You can say chromosomes don't matter and point me to a website with some Sharpie doodles, but Sharpie doodles aren't science. If evolution is an on-going, long, gradual process, we should be able to observe what is represented by the Sharpie doodles, at least in all those poor fruit-flies we've been bombarding with radiation for decades. So far as I am aware, we don't.
Your suggestion that I am unable to understand basic college texts is insulting. Is that really how your science operates?
ML/NJ
You are speaking in the manner of someone who holds to the "young earth" creation idea as if it is literal fact, and that is how I have responded to you. I do not question the honesty of most people who are literal creationists; in most cases they are sincere, but scientifically naive, and endlessly repeat the "facts" that they find on various literal creation advocacy sites, because they don't have enough science education to be able to discern the difference between true science and quackery. You repeated some of the exact same kinds of "facts" that I have come to associate with those invented by the charlatans who run organizations like The Discovery Institute and its ilk.
I do know who Behe is and even have one of his books, but I know nothing of his quoting Coyne or Orr or both. I have the Coyne and Orr text I referred to, because I am genuinely interested in learning what I can about the topic of speciation. The quote I "cherry-picked" sort of hits one right between the eyes as it is the opening sentence of Chapter One of Speciation. My marginal note which I wrote when I first read this was/is Like what are Darwin's "Immense Achievements" if he didn't have anything to say about speciation? The phrase "immense achievements" is in the second sentence which I didn't bother to quote before but here it is: "The study of speciation is thus one of the few areas of evolutionary biology not overshadowed by Darwin's immense achievements."
What I quoted was Coyne's own commentary about how his words were cherry-picked by Behe to make it seem like Coyne was saying something he did not say. The cherry-picked quote in question was very similar to the quote you used. Did you go to the link I provided and read the entire commentary surrounding Coyne's quote that I posted?
As for Darwin's achievements, they were truly amazing, especially considering that he had no clue about genetics, and could not know anything about the underlying mechanisms. (True, Gregor Mendel was a contemporary, but for all his great work, he also knew nothing about the underlying mechanisms.) When speaking of the *modern* theory of evolution, it's kind of silly to keep bringing up Darwin, anyway--our understanding of biology has progressed far beyond Darwin's understanding--just like our understanding of every other science has progressed since then.
You're quite correct that science is supposed to be objective. When contradictions arise in chemistry or physics the underlying theory is discarded (except to my mind when it comes to the concept of tunneling). But when it comes to "evolution" the theory just turns into a bigger kludge.
Like any scientific theory, the theory of evolution is revised as new discoveries are made. Science would not progress if theories weren't revised to fit the observations. Having been through the PhD student process myself, and lived, first hand, the experience of using the best knowledge I had to formulate a hypothesis and design an experiment to test it--then having the experiment fail, causing me to reconsider and revise the hypothesis and devise a new experiment, probably hundreds of times--this idea that, somehow, a theory that is reconsidered and revised in response to new data must, as a result, be invalid, is absolutely dumbfounding.
It is utterly ludicrous to claim that the process of evolution occurs by the exact mechanisms that scientists have described all along
Are these the same objective scientists you referred to previously?
No, this is a statement of the beliefs of the "creation scientists" aka "young earth creationists", and is the same belief you seemed to express. "Creation scientists" claim that "adaptation" proceeds at a breakneck pace, while simultaneously claiming that evolution (the exact same process) occurs too slowly to have progressed as far as it has within the ~13 billion year existence of the universe. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
I really don't know how to say things better than I already have. I ask you why there has been no separation in the human species given the obvious breeding populations into which we were, until recently, separated and you start talking about 6000 years and creation science.
The first time you asked that, you answered the question yourself almost immediately. Homo sapiens sapiens populations simply have not been separated for a sufficient length of time for speciation to occur. And now, with modern travel and migration patterns, we're mixing up gene pools that were well on the way to irreversible divergence. Many genetically distinct populations still exist, mostly in isolated places. This isn't to say that human populations have NOT speciated--other species of humans preceeded us, and at least a couple of other species coexisted with us (Neanderthals and Denisovans).
You're the one who appears to be trying to fit everything into a literal creationist framework. So that's how I respond.
You can say chromosomes don't matter and point me to a website with some Sharpie doodles, but Sharpie doodles aren't science. If evolution is an on-going, long, gradual process, we should be able to observe what is represented by the Sharpie doodles, at least in all those poor fruit-flies we've been bombarding with radiation for decades. So far as I am aware, we don't.
Did you read the explanatory text at that website? Do you know what those "Sharpie doodles" represent? Are you familiar with the processes they were illustrating? How much do you know about meiosis, and how familiar are you with the terminology, both referring to the stages of meiosis, and to the names of the various structures involved? FYI, the person who made those "doodles" is a university professor, a fact which you can verify for yourself with a quick search at the university website. His explanation was factually correct. What makes you think that the processes he was describing have NOT been observed, measured, described, and reported on in the scientific literature many times?
Your suggestion that I am unable to understand basic college texts is insulting. Is that really how your science operates?
Really? I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your comments about the "Sharpie doodles" made it painfully clear just how little you truly understand about biology. Nothing you've said indicates that you have even a basic understanding of biology, much less the depth of knowledge needed to understand an upper-level textbook. Just about the entire text of that book (Evolution) discusses speciation, even though only a couple of chapters actually have the word "speciation" in the title.
There really is nothing shameful, and no reason to be defensive, about being ignorant of fields you have never studied. And biology is such a complicated discipline, with many many branches, that no one can possibly learn it all. I was serious when I suggested taking a couple of basic biology classes, if you genuinely want to understand the nuts and bolts of how speciation occurs. At the least, an introductory biology course (BIO 101) and a genetics course will go a long way towards preparing you to understand the "Evolution" textbook.
I had exactly the same reaction. I wanted to grab a weapon immediately.
The whole of the Danny Vendramini premise is based on a fallacy, and further compounded by assumptions.
Eight inches of fur? Why not seven or eight and a quater inches? An assumption based on fur some other animals had. Just a wild guess with no facts.
Neanderthals made flutes which have holes - how did they make the holes if they had no way to drill through items?
Just because something has not been found or recognized does not mean it did not exist.
An ape with a spear who had a much greater crainal capacity than any of us modern types. A so-called ape who hung around for 200,000 years - more than we can say - twice as long, if one includes Homo Heildelbergenis as part of the Neanderthal family.
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.