Posted on 06/24/2007 6:39:42 PM PDT by blam
KEYWORDS: neandertal; neandertals; neanderthal; neanderthals
It’s interesting that great apes have learned to communicate with sign language, originating conversations, making up jokes, and whatnot. It’s generally thought that some of the seagoing mammals (whales and dolphins etc) communicate verbally, but we have no idea what they’re saying. It’s a little embarrassing that cats seem to understand us perfectly (although they also love to ignore us or give us the brush-off) but we have no idea what they’re saying, relying instead on other cues, like when they rear up to touch the door to go out.
There’s no evidence of hominids in the fossil record between 9 and 4 million years ago (1st link) or 15 and 6 million (2nd link). Also from the 2nd link there’s no trace of the pongids from 17 to 15 million years ago. The oldest primate fossils (last I heard) were found in Asia, and date about 45 mya; primate fossils 40 m.y. old have been found in Texas. The Americas have extant primates, but they are not considered monkeys because of the structure of their
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/37633/1330700406_ftp.pdf
http://www.cameron.edu/~bmcdonal/course_description/homonid%20evolution/humanevo.pdf
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1010509/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1940963/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2127425/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2892829/posts
sidebars:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1207091/posts
African primate fossils a mere 37 mya:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1502273/posts
Sorry FRiend, but you seem very confused.
"On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[6]
This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[7]"
A shorter bottleneck of 10,000 individuals, following a much longer one of 2,000 individuals in sub-Saharan Africa.
Mechanicos: "2. Y chromosomes are indeed similar worldwide.
No divergent Y lineages have been found.
Therefore, evolutionists acknowledge a paternal common ancestor, calling him Y-chromosomal Adam."
By my count, that's nine different estimates ranging from 120,000 years ago to 338,000 years ago.
So the basic idea of a "Y-chromosomal Adam" seems pretty well established, though the dates are open for debate.
However, nobody has ever suggested a date below 100,000 years, so far as I know.
Mechanicos: "4. There is little difference between these three mtDNA lineages, so they must have originated in a single female, who lived not long before the bottleneck. (Evolutionists call her Mitochondrial Eve)."
Mechanicos: "5. Since humans have virtually identical DNA, the genetic diversity is consistent with thousands of years, not millions of years."
Human genetic diversity is consistent with Y-chrosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, as well as a "population bottleneck" 70,000 years ago.
Mechanicos quoting: “We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years”
Consistent, as you quoted, with explosive population growth during that time period.
What you're forgetting here is that evolution works on two basic principles: 1) descent with modifications (mutations) and 2) natural selection ("survival of the fittest").
Prior to the great population explosions which began with agriculture 10,000 years ago, natural selection weeded out all but the most perfect specimens of their species.
So, with small populations and very aggressive natural selections, relatively few genetic mutations survived from ancient times.
But with agriculture, cities, culture, learning, medicines, etc., more people lived much longer and were able to pass their mutations down to following generations.
So the normal "scrubbing action" of natural selection was greatly reduced, and many more mutations survive from recent generations.
Mechanicos: "There are three mtDNA lineages, perfectly matching the Bible's record of the three wives on the Ark who repopulated the Earth."
No, there are many more than three:
Mechanicos: "These three mtDNA lineages are very similar, indicating they diverged from a single female ancestor who lived one to two thousand years before the Flood – matching Biblical Eve.
Eve's mtDNA would have diverged down through Eve's descendents for roughly 1,500 years (~75 generations), then at the Flood only three lineages were taken onto the Ark."
In scientific terms, that's pure fantasy, corresponding to no known facts or theories.
Mechanicos: "Humans have a high mutation rate, passing down over 100 mutations per generation.
This is consistent with a human history of thousands, not millions, of years."
Different studies produced different results, and all acknowledge that most mutations are apparently harmless.
But even if, for sake of argument, we accept your figure of 100 mutations per generation, remember that is 100 base pairs out of over three billion!
And this rate of mutation multiplied over the seven million years said to separate humans from chimpanzee ancestors, produces roughly the number of base-pair differences reported between them: 4% = 120 million or so.
But I don't accept your 100 base-pair mutations per generation, because that number varies greatly with conditions.
Also varying: reported differences between chimp & human DNA, depending on exactly what is, and how it's, measured.
My only point here is that there's nothing "illogical" about average rates of mutation and the numbers of base-pair differences measured between humans & chimps.
Which is not to claim it's all perfectly understood, far from it -- only that nothing about it seems "impossible".
Our next couple of GGG topics, soon, and sooner if someone else does it first. :’)
Earliest Known Stone Tools Planted the Seeds of Communication and Language
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/winter-01012015/article/earliest-known-stone-tools-planted-the-seeds-of-communication-and-language
Yabba dabba d’oh! Stone Age man wasn’t necessarily more advanced than the Neanderthals
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/uom-ydd011415.php
No, abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis, not a "belief".
It's one of a list of hypotheses relating to origins of life on Earth, another hypothesis is called panspermia.
None of these hypotheses are strongly confirmed, all are subject to future falsifications, but some research has produced interesting results, including the discovery that certain organic molecules (no, just molecules, not "life") under the right conditions can reproduce themselves.
And biogenesis is not a scientific "law", it's a confirmed theory which does not address the question of when, precisely, do we classify complex chemistry as simple "life"?
For example, is a virus "life" or "chemistry"?
I'd say "chemistry", but it's a matter or word definitions.
So there's no "hand waving" here, just the facts, sir.
Actually, that is stupid. Once we postulate a “God” who can create matter out of nothing, by definition that God could create the heavy elements yesterday, or 10,000 years ago, or 1 million years ago. He could create differing decomposition elements to provide a simulation of any age he desired.
Heck, we could create a rock with any apparent age we wanted — we have the technology. So to suggest that an all-powerful God couldn’t do so is just absurd.
IF you want to argue that there IS no such God, then argue it. But don’t try to suggest that the “problem” of heavy elements can’t be solved by postulating that all-powerful God.
I believe that God makes himself known through reason. If God had not created a universe where 1+1=2 and hence, E=mc², we wouldn’t be here discussing this.
How would one falsify the hypothesis of sbiogenesis?
Biogenesis has moved from hypothesis to theory to law because of billions of observations and untold hours of observation and experiment. It is also science because it eminently falsifiable. Observe one instance of inorganic compound yielding life and you have falsified the law.
As for handwaving panspermia is exactly that. You simply move the problem to somewhere else in the universe.
Thanks, a wonderful lists of sites and links.
The same way you'd falsify any hypothesis -- by confirming evidence which contradicts it.
jwashl07: "Biogenesis has moved from hypothesis to theory to law because of billions of observations and untold hours of observation and experiment.
It is also science because it eminently falsifiable."
Sorry, but in scientific terminology, a theory does not become a law, ever.
A "law" requires a mathematical expression of a pattern, and is still subject to the same falsification as any other theory.
What does sometimes happen is a theory becoming an observed fact, good examples being our globe - shaped Earth and Sun - centered solar system.
These have been observed & confirmed often enough to be considered facts now, no longer theories.
As you suggest, biogenesis is also an obviously confirmed fact, but I'll repeat: it doesn't address the question of how life first rose on Earth.
Repeating: for that question there is no confirmed theory, only a list of hypotheses, of which abiogenesis is just one.
Whether any of these hypotheses can ever be confirmed is still highly debatable, and one on which many scientists are working.
So what about all this has got you so confused?
This logically dates the bottleneck to within the Biblical timeframe, rather than the evolutionary 70k+ years timeframe, otherwise there would have been virtually no mutations for at least 60,000 years, then suddenly almost all mutations. Illogical plus it's contrary to the Molecular Clock idea."
BroJoeK: ”What you're forgetting here is that evolution works on two basic principles: 1) descent with modifications (mutations) and 2) natural selection ("survival of the fittest").
Prior to the great population explosions which began with agriculture 10,000 years ago, natural selection weeded out all but the most perfect specimens of their species. So, with small populations and very aggressive natural selections, relatively few genetic mutations survived from ancient times.
But with agriculture, cities, culture, learning, medicines, etc., more people lived much longer and were able to pass their mutations down to following generations. So the normal "scrubbing action" of natural selection was greatly reduced, and many more mutations survive from recent generations.”
Response” Current Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants. “To more quantitatively assess the distribution of mutation ages, we resequenced 15,336 genes in 6,515 individuals of European American and African American ancestry and inferred the age of 1,146,401 autosomal single nucleotide variants (SNVs). We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7431/full/nature11690.html
Mechanicos: "There are three mtDNA lineages, perfectly matching the Bible's record of the three wives on the Ark who repopulated the Earth."
BrooeK: No, there are many more than three: "Human mtDNA haplogroups are lettered: A, B, C, CZ, D, E, F, G, H, HV, I, J, pre-JT, JT, K, L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, M, N, P, Q, R, R0, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z. The most up-to-date version of the mtDNA tree is maintained by Mannis van Oven on the PhyloTree website.[4]"
Response: What you have omitted above is the haplocroups have 3 main lineages. Just look at the Lineage Perspective tree after the introductory paragraphs. Time effectively is from left to right. At the top is the lineage evolutionists call L (Mitochondrial Eve). You can plainly see the three main lineages that appear further down “M,” “N,” and “R” which all have their own derivatives under them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup
Mechanicos: "These three mtDNA lineages are very similar, indicating they diverged from a single female ancestor who lived one to two thousand years before the Flood – matching Biblical Eve. Eve's mtDNA would have diverged down through Eve's descendents for roughly 1,500 years (~75 generations), then at the Flood only three lineages were taken onto the Ark."
BroJoeK: In scientific terms, that's pure fantasy, corresponding to no known facts or theories.
Response: The response above exemplifies the difference between Scholastic Authority versus the Scientific Method. As shown above there are scientific facts and theories that correspond to the above statements. What is not scientific is the policy of tossing out any facts or theories that tend to disprove the scholastic authority dogma.
Mechanicos: "Humans have a high mutation rate, passing down over 100 mutations per generation. This is consistent with a human history of thousands, not millions, of years."
BroJoeK: “Different studies produced different results, and all acknowledge that most mutations are apparently harmless. But even if, for sake of argument, we accept your figure of 100 mutations per generation, remember that is 100 base pairs out of over three billion! And this rate of mutation multiplied over the seven million years said to separate humans from chimpanzee ancestors, produces roughly the number of base-pair differences reported between them: 4% = 120 million or so. But I don't accept your 100 base-pair mutations per generation, because that number varies greatly with conditions. Also varying: reported differences between chimp & human DNA, depending on exactly what is, and how it's, measured. My only point here is that there's nothing "illogical" about average rates of mutation and the numbers of base-pair differences measured between humans & chimps. Which is not to claim it's all perfectly understood, far from it -- only that nothing about it seems "impossible".
Response: See the above referenced scientific study which shows …”that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years.”
Mechanicos: "1. The Human Genome Project was declared complete in April 2003. One of its findings was that all humans have virtually identical DNA. They suggested that this is due to a population bottleneck in our past, where our numbers dwindled so low that we teetered on the brink of extinction."
BroJoeK: Sorry FRiend, but you seem very confused. "The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 10,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidence of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidence of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation in humans.[3]..." "On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[6] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[7]" A shorter bottleneck of 10,000 individuals, following a much longer one of 2,000 individuals in sub-Saharan Africa.
Response: As shown above and in the original article the 70,000 year time line has been called into doubt and likely falsified - Scholastic Authority Dogma not withstanding. In laymen’s terms citing the original contested material to prove the contested material is both boot-strapping and circular. Neither logical fallacy is Scientific method.
Mechanicos: "2. Y chromosomes are indeed similar worldwide. No divergent Y lineages have been found. Therefore, evolutionists acknowledge a paternal common ancestor, calling him Y-chromosomal Adam."
BroJoeK: "The age for the Y-MRCA [Y-chromosomal Adam] has been variously estimated as 188,000,[2] 270,000,[3] 306,000,[4] and 142,000 years.[5] A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years.[6] Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years,[7] and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years.[8]" By my count, that's nine different estimates ranging from 120,000 years ago to 338,000 years ago.So the basic idea of a "Y-chromosomal Adam" seems pretty well established, though the dates are open for debate.However, nobody has ever suggested a date below 100,000 years, so far as I know.
Response: At issue was the argument supporting the flood story by DNA research not the origin of the species. All of the points raised are related to a genetic bottleneck recently (5,000 to 15,000 years ago) in Human DNA as supported by science. The Adam factor is incidental to help show the bottleneck. But-for that Bottle-Neck given the current estimated age of Adam we should have much more genetic diversity and population size.
Mechanicos: "4. There is little difference between these three mtDNA lineages, so they must have originated in a single female, who lived not long before the bottleneck. (Evolutionists call her Mitochondrial Eve)."
BroJoeK: "In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA), in a direct, unbroken, maternal line, of all currently living anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person."
Response: Again, the above point was to show evidence of a bottleneck recently in Human DNA mutations.
Mechanicos: "5. Since humans have virtually identical DNA, the genetic diversity is consistent with thousands of years, not tens of thousands of years."
BroJoeK: Human genetic diversity is consistent with Y-chrosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, as well as a "population bottleneck" 70,000 years ago.
Response: Not quite: the point made was Modern Human DNA is consistent with the story of the Flood and not consistent with a longer time for humans given natural population growth rates and speed of development we know of so far.
Mechanicos quoting: “We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years”
BroJoeK: Consistent, as you quoted, with explosive population growth during that time period.
Response: I disagree, as the science above shows it is much more closely consistent with Adam & Eve long ago and a DNA bottleneck down to one man, his 3 sons and their wives 5-15,000 years ago.
Nonsense.
Is thermodynamics science?
Are there 4 laws of thermo?
A biogenesis is not falsifiable. Period.
You are a big time hand waver amigo.
Sorry, but the only "handwaving" going on here is yours, as clearly evidenced in your other statements:
jwalsh07: "Is thermodynamics science?
Are there 4 laws of thermo?"
Of course, but none of them "prove" whatever it is you fanaticize they "prove", regardless of how much handwaving you do at them.
jwalsh07: "A biogenesis is not falsifiable. Period."
Of course it's falsifiable, just like any other scientific hypothesis -- for example, by confirmed evidence that life arose on Earth some way other than abiogenesis.
Really, FRiend, this is not so difficult.
Just put your mind to it earnestly, and you'll easily grasp the truth of the matter.
Yo SloJoe. A and B can both be true. They are not mutually exclusive. That life came to the third rock via panspermia as you posited does not exclude life originating somewhere abiotically. Your logic is not up to snuff. In fact Joe it is nonexistent. Try again. Or better yet try using your noggin and understand that A may be true but A can not be falsified.
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.