Ancient fossils fill gap in early human evolution

To: concerned about politics

All the specimens tested have animal DNA.

Please provide a reference to a story wherein any DNA from a hominid fossil was identified.

They're not human. They're still apes.

You imply a duality when in fact humans are apes. However, no one has suggested that the apes found would be human. I do not understand what you believe should have been found.

42 posted on 04/12/2006 2:12:20 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

Do you have a citation for that?

43 posted on 04/12/2006 2:12:46 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

Didn't they find dinosaur DNA?

No.

44 posted on 04/12/2006 2:14:10 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

" Please provide a reference to a story wherein any DNA from a hominid fossil was identified."

I do believe that DNA from Neanderthals has been found and compared with homo sapiens.

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

Your main contention is correct though; DNA has not been found from other hominids.

45 posted on 04/12/2006 2:15:32 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")

"Two gods-in-the-gap instead of one" placemark

46 posted on 04/12/2006 2:36:00 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)

I think mlcwhatever thought Jurassic Park was a documentary.

47 posted on 04/12/2006 3:10:24 PM PDT by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)

They have found dinosaur DNA. I read it right here on FR recently.

Great! Where's the link?

48 posted on 04/12/2006 3:32:12 PM PDT by stands2reason

Louis Leakey said that the best way to get funding was to give the fossil you find a completely new genus and species name, and explain how it filled a special gap.

Is it asking too much to request a link to that statement?

49 posted on 04/12/2006 3:39:47 PM PDT by stands2reason

To: stands2reason

This beauty, perhaps?

50 posted on 04/12/2006 3:45:33 PM PDT by Gumlegs

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Should have pinged you on post 50. Sorry.

51 posted on 04/12/2006 3:46:51 PM PDT by Gumlegs

There is an article on the T rex find in the April issue of Discover magazine.

From p. 77: "Truth is, Schweitzer hasn't even bothered to look for DNA."

52 posted on 04/12/2006 4:03:31 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)

To: concerned about politics

All the specimens tested have animal DNA. They're not human. They're still apes.

I hate to break this to you, but humans are apes. Genetically, we're closer to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to gorillas and other apes (except bonobos, but let's not get too technical).

the report says they found absolutely no human DNA at all

You don't have even a cursory understanding of genetics, do you? Not even an introductory university biology course to your name, I would think. Your question is, frankly, embarassing.

53 posted on 04/12/2006 4:37:14 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)

To: VadeRetro; PatrickHenry

We just ended up in chat. What's going on?
Science isn't important.

Still, it's not the Smoley Backroom

54 posted on 04/12/2006 4:53:00 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Liberal comes from "liber" the Latin word for "free" - Liberal Republic, you know it makes sense)

I never smoled much anyway.

55 posted on 04/12/2006 5:02:45 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)

56 posted on 04/12/2006 5:10:09 PM PDT by mlc9852

You mean it wasn't???? I am so disappointed.

57 posted on 04/12/2006 5:12:56 PM PDT by mlc9852

You'll notice that the link does NOT say that dino DNA was found.

58 posted on 04/12/2006 5:18:38 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")

Only trivial threads are in "chat." Therefore I abandon thread!

59 posted on 04/12/2006 5:38:35 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)

To: concerned about politics; CarolinaGuitarman

Yes. All the specimens tested have animal DNA. They're not human. They're still apes. The press didn't make a big deal out of the findings, but the Christian news did.

LOL! Don't trust the "Christian news" for fair or accurate renderings of scientific findings!

DNA has only been recovered from Neanderthals. Not from any other pre-(Modern)-Human/Hominid species or subspecies. It indicates that Neanderthals share a more recent common ancestor with modern humans than with chimpanzees, EXACTLY AS MUST BE THE CASE IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

Granted some scientists expected Neanderthals to be more closely related than indicated by the evidence, but not all did, and all that is REQUIRED is that Neanderthals are closer to H. sapiens sapiens than either is to apes. Again this is what was found. Consult the link supplied by CarolinaGuitarman for the details:

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

Excerpt:

The researchers removed a sample from the humerous specimen. They analyzed the extend of amino acid racemization to determine suitability for analysis. It was determined that the amino acid levels were at 20% to 73% of those in modern bone, evidencing DNA survival. This and other tests indicated the remains might contain amplifiable DNA. Amplification products were cloned. Twenty seven clones of obvious non-human origin were produced. The entire sequence of hypervariable region 1 was determined, 387 positions. This was accomplished with overlapping segments.

In comparison to modern DNA 27 differences are seen. The Neanderthal sequence was compared with 2051 human and 59 chimpanzee sequences over 360 base pairs. Twenty five of the 27 variable base pairs coincide with positions that vary in at least one of the human sequences. The sequence was compared with 994 human mtDNA lineages. While these lineages differ among themselves by eight substitutions on average, the range of difference with the Neanderthal sequence is 22-36. The Neanderthal sequence has 28.2 ±1.9 substitutions from the European lineage, 27.1 ±12.2 substitutions from the African lineage, 27.7 ±2.2 substitutions from the Asian lineage, 27.4 ±1.8 substitutions from the American lineage, and 28.3 ±2.7 substitutions from the Australian/Oceanic lineages. This indicates no closer a relationship with Europeans than with the other modern human subsets considered.

The comparison to chimpanzees with modern humans is 55.0 ±3.0, compared to the average between humans and Neanderthals of 25.6 ±2.2. These results indicate a divergence of the human and Neanderthal lineages long before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of humans. Based on the estimated divergence date of 4-5 million years ago for humans and chimpanzees, the authors estimate the human and Neanderthal divergence at 550,000-690,000 years ago. The age of the common human ancestor, using the same procedure, is about 120,000-150,000 years ago.

BTW, you would seem to be unaware that creationists overwhelmingly claim that Neanderthals ARE CLEARLY ON THE HUMAN SIDE of the human/ape divide. Indeed I've read many, many volumes of antievolution literature and don't recall a single case of an antievolutionist claiming that Neanderthals are just apes.

60 posted on 04/12/2006 5:48:20 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794