Project plans map of Neanderthal genome

The Globe and Mail ^ | 7/24/06 | GEIR MOULSON

[doc30]

BERLIN — U.S. and German scientists have launched a two-year project to decipher the genetic code of the Neanderthal, a feat they hope will help deepen understanding of how modern humans' brains evolved.

Neanderthals were a species that lived in Europe and western Asia from more than 200,000 years ago to about 30,000 years ago. Scientists from Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology are teaming up a company in Connecticut to map the genome, or humans' DNA code.

“The Neanderthal is the closest relative to the modern human, and we believe that by sequencing the Neanderthal we can learn a lot,” said Michael Egholm, a vice-president at 454 Life Sciences Corp. of Branford, Conn., which will use its high-speed sequencing technology in the project.

There are no firm answers yet about how humans picked up key traits such as walking upright and developing complex language. Neanderthals are believed to have been relatively sophisticated, but lacking in humans' higher reasoning functions.

The Neanderthal project follows scientists' achievement last year in deciphering the DNA of the chimpanzee, our closest living relative. That genome map produced a long list of DNA differences between humans and chimps and some hints about which differences might be crucial.

The chimp genome “led to literally too many questions, there were 35 million differences between us and chimpanzees – that's too much to figure out,” 454 chairman Jonathan Rothberg said in a telephone interview.

“By having Neanderthal, we'll really be able to home in on the small percentage of differences that gave us higher cognitive abilities,” he said. “Neanderthal is going to open the box. It's not going to answer the question, but it's going to tell where to look to understand all of those higher cognitive functions.”

Over two years, the scientists aim to reconstruct a draft of the three-billion building blocks of the Neanderthal genome – working with fossil samples from several individuals.

They face the complication of working with 40,000-year-old samples, and of filtering out microbial DNA that contaminated them after death.

Only about 5 per cent of the DNA in the samples is actually Neanderthal DNA, Mr. Egholm said, but he and Mr. Rothberg said pilot experiments had convinced them that the decoding was feasible.

At the Max Planck Institute, the project also involves Svante Paabo, who nine years ago participated in a pioneering, though smaller-scale, DNA test on a Neanderthal sample.

That study suggested that Neanderthals and humans split from a common ancestor a half-million years ago and backed the theory that Neanderthals were an evolutionary dead end.

The new project will help in understanding how characteristics unique to humans evolved and “will also identify those genetic changes that enabled modern humans to leave Africa and rapidly spread around the world,” Mr. Paabo said in a statement Thursday.

[Boxen]

Let's take a look at your link. I'll address what I can, and I invite my fellow eggheads to handle the rest.

Ten reasons why creation scientists don't believe in evolution

3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Any theory concerning the origin of the universe or the origin of life is independent from theory of evolution. I implore you to show me where the theory of evolution is the necessary result of the big bang or any one origin of life theory.

I could also take "social and practical inconsistencies," but I'm a little too tired. Maybe in the morning. Finally, I will make an addition to the list:

11. The theory of evolution violates the unreasonable a priori assumption that the creation account given in Genesis is correct.

[Vaquero]

Milford's recent book, Race And Human Evolution, does a good job of explaining this theory.

Thanks...I was only familar with his appearences on science shows on TV..

I just ordered the book on Amazon.

[oh8eleven]

Tell you what, you stay here, and I'll go to Mars. How's that sound?
This taxpayer is TIRED of footing the bill for all the freeloaders who have this great "urge" to discover and want me to pay for it. I don't care where you go, as long as you pay for it.

[Oztrich Boy]

You are totally out of your league on this one.

My impulse was to praise the brilliant satire.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"1). There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world."

Laughably wrong.

"2). 2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order"."

The link provides no better explanation for this supposed reason than *each according to its kind*.

"Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. "

Not even close to all mutations are harmful. And this was supposed to be written by scientists? lol

"Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening."

Argument from incredulity.

"Secondly, we find that the first matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing."

This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution isn't in any way concerned with the origins of the universe.

"4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were."

Poppycock.

"5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all."

Nonsense. Where did they get these people?

"6. The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ape at all."

Nope. It's easy to just ignore the evidence, but you would think these *scientists* could have done better than *I don't want to see it!*.

"7. Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies."

Completely ignores the fitness value of cooperation.

"8. Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies."

Same crap.

"9. The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution."

Apperently there were no working geologists in the *scientists* that wrote this. A universal flood would not order the fossils in any way approaching what we see.

"The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason."

That isn't what is seen.

"Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low."

That isn't what is seen.

"10. Bias towards evolution."

I guess they had to find something to fill out their list of ten. How anticlimactic.

"Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. "

No they didn't. Another feature of these types of creationist lists is the lack of concern for bearing false witness.

Thanks for the morning laugh though. I needed it! :)

PS: I don't know if you realize this, but the link you provided is from a PRO-EVO site. They listed the ten reasons to not accept evolution and then proceeded to DEMOLISH them, one by one. I didn't notice until I got to the end of the page. Read the whole page.

[JustDoItAlways]

There will be very little genetic difference between us and Neanderthals.

The two lines have only been separated by 200,000 to 300,000 years.

The mitochondrial DNA studies say that there were enough differences that it is very likely there was no interbreeding with us but they should be extremely close to homo sapien sapiens genetically.

I imagine that when CroMagnon modern humans arrived in Europe, likely in a small break in the last Ice Age, they brought deseases with them that easily crossed into Neanderthals and this helped wipe them out as well.

[furball4paws]

Closed Mind Placemarker.

[after dark]

Bring back Neanderthal!

[Quark2005]

This taxpayer is TIRED of footing the bill for all the freeloaders who have this great "urge" to discover and want me to pay for it. I don't care where you go, as long as you pay for it.

Me too. I'm tired of freeloading scientists who only work 70-80 work weeks cooped up in the lab, sometimes pulling in 5-digit salaries for their meager amount of education and work! Scientific research and discovery has never done any good for the U.S., anyway.

[Coyoteman]

I have researched quite a bit of science and so have many scientists that see the falsity of TOE...here's some interesting facts about the confused state of the proponents of evolution. Not out of my league at all. It's not hard to understand; doesn't take a genius. Anyways, I do hope that info will open your mind a little because the facts are there for us regardless of what agenda is trying to work through us. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=813053.

I took a look at your link. The section titled "Evidence 4" deals with fossils (a field with which I am familiar). It recycles the same tired old creationist nonsense: it is full of fabrications, exaggerations, wishful thinking trying to pass as evidence, and mistakes. Most of its claims have been long-since rebutted. (Here is an extensive list of creationist claims, and detailed rebuttals.)

One easy example? Piltdown Man. Your link claims "The 'discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years" and they "wrote some 500 books on it." Both are flat out lies. Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (E.A. Hooton, Up from the Ape, revised edition; The MacMillan Co., 1946). It was the South African finds that led to Piltdown being largely ignored after the mid-1920s. And the 500 books? That is often claimed to be 500 Ph.D. dissertations rather than just books. Neither is true. There have been a number of books since the final proof that Piltdown was a hoax, but those have concentrated on the hoax itself. I doubt the author of your link could find five books on Piltdown from before it was shown to be a hoax.

Another example? Your link claims "The brow over the eyes which supposedly characterized lesser humans existed in none of the fossils prior to Neanderthal or after." Here are some examples of the brow ridges that "don't exist":

KNM-ER 3733, Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster)

TM 266-01-060-1, "Toumaï", Sahelanthropus tchadensis

OK, one more example: Your link states "Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, 'Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away.'" The actual facts are given here. This claim is typical creationist wishful thinking nonsense. The source I just provided did a complete analysis, including contacting creationists who made this claim. Here is a summary:

At least eighteen creationists have made this bogus claim. Three have never responded in any way to questions about it (Girouard, Menton, Willis). Another two have not responded to further inquiries (Brown, McAllister). Only five have shown a willingness to discuss the matter (Chittick, the Nuttings, Sharp, Taylor), but one (Chittick) cut off correspondence. Four have agreed that the claim was in error and agreed to stop making it (Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, Taylor), and two agreed to stop making it if further investigation showed that the claim was bogus (the Nuttings) but have continued to repeat it. One (Arndts) has indicated a willingness to believe that the claim is in error but no interest in researching further or offering a correction because the article in which he made the claim just used it as an example of a type of error in reasoning. One (LaHaye) has insisted that the claim is not in error, but agreed to stop making it at the request of the Institute for Creation Research. Three (Baugh, Huse, Mehlert) have not yet been contacted for comment. One (Brown) now denies having made the claim at all. Only three (Menton, Morris, Sharp) have issued public corrections or clarifications.

OK, one more example. Your link notes, "In addition to being poor, the fossils are also inconsistent. The Boisei skull has a large crest on the top (picture #6) unlike any supposed hominid before it or after it and nothing like any human ever."

So? If you note in the chart below, Paranthropus boisei is a side branch (on the right side, abbreviated as P. boisei. The fact that it has a crest is of no importance to human evolution, as this fellow in not on the human line. So this supposed "proof" against evolution means nothing.

(Well, it might mean that the author of your link didn't actually know where P. boisei fits and made a whopper of a mistake.)

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

I have now shown a bunch of the claims made in your link are nonsense. What say you?

[after dark]

It is to bad this thread was hijacked by the Darwiniacs. I had high hopes for this thread. Neanderthal is one of the most fascinating creatures which ever lived . I hope he gets a second chance.

[Boxen]

It is to bad this thread was hijacked by the Darwiniacs.

Yes, I can see how your posts have really contributed to this discussion.

[Coyoteman]

It is to bad this thread was hijacked by the Darwiniacs. I had high hopes for this thread. Neanderthal is one of the most fascinating creatures which ever lived . I hope he gets a second chance.

I just read the entire thread. I disagree that it was "Darwiniacs" who did the hijacking. Other than the usual jokes, the anti-science posts came first. Then came the anti-evolution posts. I and others responded to those.

Neanderthal is a fascinating creature and I appreciate the thread, but any science related thread does seem to draw and anti-science and anti-evolution crowds. This one is not as bad as most.

[js1138]

How do you discuss Neanderthal without discussing, or at least considering evolution?

[Boxen]

Also, we "Dariniacs" are answering the assertion that Neanderthal man is nothing more than an evilutionist ploy to validate the theory of evolution. Please note that Fabian made the claim, stating:

What they call neanderthal is probably a type of large ape or ape like creature.

Would you agree with him?

[after dark]

By recreating a Neanderthal we would be flying in the face evolution ,but it would be the only way to find out for certain if Neanderthal was intelligent or just another ape. If he turns out to be more intelligent than man, then intelligence is not the determining factor in survival. I suspect were we to recreate several Neanderthals we would end up like King Louie from the Disney movie Jungle Book saying to Neanderthal "I wanna be like you oo oo!".

[Coyoteman]

By recreating a Neanderthal we would be flying in the face evolution ,but it would be the only way to find out for certain if Neanderthal was intelligent or just another ape. If he turns out to be more intelligent than man, then intelligence is not the determining factor in survival.

Interesting problem. Assuming you could clone Neanderthal, you would not be able to recreate the Neanderthal culture, so you would not have a true picture.

Given the tool use and other traits, there is no question that Neanderthal was intelligent; the question is how intelligent. I posed a response above relating brain size to body size. Another factor in the equation is the wiring of the brain. We do not currently know if Neanderthal was wired in exactly the same way. A clone or the DNA itself could perhaps provide some of that information.

[oh8eleven]

"I am a graduate student working on my PhD in experimental nuclear/particle physics"
A professional student and future freeloader in the making.

[js1138]

The interesting question is language. Whales have big brains, but their communication lacks syntax.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"By recreating a Neanderthal we would be flying in the face evolution..."

Not in any way would that be so.

"If he turns out to be more intelligent than man, then intelligence is not the determining factor in survival."

Who said it was?