Posted on 08/16/2012 9:41:05 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Paging Nicholas Wade. He’s the New York Times science writer who worships at the altar of Darwinism.
Two years ago, he reported that biologists, led by Svante Paabo of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, had determined that Neanderthals mated with modern humans.
That “scientific” finding provided a convenient explanation for what happened to humanity’s supposed ancestor: We interbred with them until they disappeared.
Now comes a new study, reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that the finding reported by Wade, were wrong. There was no mating, no “hybridization,” between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (us).
The study’s authors, Andrea Manica and Anders Eriksson, scientists with the Evolutionary Ecology Group at Britain’s Cambridge University, say that modern humans have no Neanderthal DNA.
Whatever DNA modern humans and Neanderthals share in common came not from interbreeding, the scientists concluded, but from a common, unknown ancestor (a chimpanzee, maybe?).
This is a stunning scientific turnabout in the prevailing wisdom about human evolution. Yet Wade has yet to weigh in on what it all means.
Are we never to know what happened to Neanderthals? Shall we never discover the “missing link,” proving that man evolved from monkey?
Could the proponents of “intelligent design” actually be right, that man did not begin existence as a simple, one-cell organism in this planet’s primordial ooze, but as the fully-formed creation of Almighty God?
Of course, Wade is not going to concede anything to those of us who dare to question his god, Darwin.
He sneers, “To many biologists and others (meaning enlightened journalists like Wade himself), it is a source of amazement and embarrassment that many Americans repudiate Darwin’s theory and that some even espouse counter-theories like creationism or intelligent design.”
“How,” he asks, “can such willful ignorance thrive in today’s seas of knowledge?”
Wade’s attack on evolution doubters, like yours truly, is nothing new for the New York Times.
All the way back in 1906, the “Gray Lady,” as the Times is affectionately known in some quarters, published an editorial supporting a decision by the Bronx Zoo to put an African pygmy named Ota Benga on display in its Monkey House – a putative live exhibit of human evolution..
“We do not quite understand all the emotion which others are expressing in the matter,” the Times harrumphed. “It is absurd to make moan over the imagined humiliation and degradation Benga is suffering. The pygmies … are very low in the human scale.”
The Times was wrong on human evolution then. And its pro-Darwin reporting is no less wrong today.
My sources says YES, in recently divergent species, this works (they believe) exceptionally well to keep species separated. Read more closely.
Horses and donkeys produce mules. Mules do not reproduce, but they are useful animals and men keep breeding them. Let’s imagine that, thousands of years from now, no one remembers how mules were made, and all the records were lost from our glorious technological age.
Mules appear to have been around for quite a while, and then, for some reason, disappeared.... Will scientists of that time say that mules look to be the common ancestor of horses and donkeys in the evolutionary chain?
I’m just wondering if Neanderthals were “mules” of a sort. I know, I know. It’s a stretch, but I’ve always wondered if man and apes got together at some point.
“When all logical possibilities have been eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how illogical, must be the truth.” - Spock
I hate to light a fire and run, but I’m going on vacation in an hour - gotta go.
Indeed - but not necessarily the answer - eh?
8^)
They are currently the ONLY useful scientific answer.
Until a more useful model replaces them - they are the ‘working model’; and they explain and help to predict a ton of useful information.
But it would NOT in ANY way shape or form - prevent the production of a hybrid ‘mule’ between the species. A sterile mule is a dead end that cannot ‘blend’ the two species (like coyote and wolf hybrids can and do blend the two species).
In a male - meiosis doesn't even take place until adulthood - so how could a barrier to successful meiosis in a hybrid prevent the production of a viable hybrid? Answer - it could not.
The papers I read in molecular biology use evolution to explain and predict useful information all the time. They are the ONLY useful and scientific explanations for the data.
The papers I read in molecular biology use evolution to explain and predict useful information all the time. They are the ONLY useful and scientific explanations for the data.
I think he just Alinsky'd you.
The extrapolation to "ANY location" includes the moon and Mars right?
haven’t looked at or for the evidence doesn’t make it nonexistent or missing or fraudulent. Look at the university library at the volumes of the publication “Evolution” alone ... The nature of science is extrapolation."
Your implication is that the evidence is the existence of the books on evolution. So may I extrapolate the existence of 100s of thousands of books in the library make them evidence of their fact too?
According to the system it could be predicted that each would fall at the same rate as the other, but slower than on earth. F=ma^2.
Wrong. My implications is that if he thinks we are not “drowning “ in information on the subject it is because he has FAILED to look.
Wrong. My implications is that if he thinks we are not “drowning “ in information on the subject it is because he has FAILED to look.
I was trying to more eloquently say that the existence of the information doesn't automatically mean it's worth more than the paper it's printed on. In the end, macroevolution is nothing beyong hypothesis, theory and extrapolation buried under a bunch of fabulous word play. Just go read all the religious based books we're drowing in that say so.
I was trying to more eloquently say that the existence of the information doesn't automatically mean it's worth more than the paper it's printed on. In the end, macroevolution is nothing beyong hypothesis, theory and extrapolation buried under a bunch of fabulous word play. Just go read all the religious based books we're drowing in that say so. :)
Sure nothing beyond a well supported theory that explains billions of facts. That you think ‘just a theory’ is a slam only shows your ignorance of science.
If something had “proof” then it would no longer be subject to debate and refinement - which is one of the hallmarks of the scientific method you so clearly do not understand.
uuhhkay, utter BS. You already lost the argument Alinsky.
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.