I'd forgotten just how much of a bloodbath these topics used to be, and this is only from 2010 C.E.
Posted on 05/13/2010 5:53:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
How much do we, who are alive today, differ from our most recent evolutionary ancestors, the cave-dwelling Neanderthals, hominids who lived in Europe and parts of Asia and went extinct about 30,000 years ago? And how much do Neanderthals, in turn, have in common with the ape-ancestors from which we are both descended, the chimpanzees?
Although we are both hominids, the fossil record told us long ago that we differ physically from Neanderthals, in various ways. But at the level of genes and the proteins that they encode, new research published online May 6 in the journal Science reveals that we differ hardly at all. It also indicates that we both -- Neanderthals and modern humans -- differ from the chimps in virtually identical ways.
"The astonishing implication of the work we've just published," says Prof. Gregory Hannon, Ph.D., of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), "is that we are incredibly similar to Neanderthals at the level of the proteome, which is the full set of proteins that our genes encode."
Collaboration with a paleogenetics pioneer
Hannon, who is also an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and is well known for his work on small RNAs and RNA interference, was invited this past year to help examine Neandertal DNA by Dr. Svante Pääbo, a pioneer in paleogenetics, a field that employs genome science to study early humans and other Paleolithic-era creatures. In a separate paper, Pääbo's team today publishes in the same issue of Science the first complete genome sequence for Neandertal, an achievement that builds on work he has led since 2006 at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Genomics in Leipzig.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
"For anything such as the present topic which involves major controversies, Wiki is totally worthless."
The real truth here is that Wikipedia is pretty consistent.
Of course Wikipedia is not the final answer on any debate.
But it does at least get us to a base level of commonly recognized facts.
Indeed, in my opinion, anyone who claims as "true" something which cannot be verified through Wikipedia, assumes the burden of proof to demonstrate why their opinions are superior to Wiki's facts. ;-)
And your scientific reference for this is what?
I learned early not to confuse science and religion, a distinction some people never do figure out.
If you can cite even one peer-reviewed scientific article which supports these claims, the I'll show you a scientist who's faked his/her credentials.
As I cited before, in terms of nucleic DNA, the latest tests show:
The differences between human and Neanderthal DNA are less than between, say, horses and donkeys.
Whether that means humans and Neanderthals would also produce infertile off-spring -- human "mules" -- is unknowable, of course.
Now comes a further announcement by Schweitzer and others, in the prestigious journal Science, of substantial additional evidence to bolster her previous findings.7 The specimen on this occasion was a piece of fossil hadrosaur (duckbilled dinosaur) bone (Brachylophosaurus canadensis) regarded by evolutionary assumptions as being 80 million years old.In short, the researchers found evidence of “the same fibrous matrix, transparent, flexible vessels, and preserved microstructures she had seen in the T. rex sample”.8 Only this time they went to exceptional lengths to silence critics.
Critics said that her claims, which given the millions of years perspective are indeed “extraordinary”, required extraordinary evidence. But this is a cliché; in reality, they just require evidence, and that has been amply provided. Yet the critics demanded additional protein sequencing, super-careful handling to avoid claims of contamination, and confirmation from other laboratories. So Schweitzer and her team set about doing just that when they looked at the leg bone of this hadrosaur encased in sandstone.
Extraordinary measures were taken to keep the sample away from contamination until it reached the lab. They used an even more sophisticated and newer mass spectrometer, and sent the samples to two other labs for confirmation. They reported finding not just collagen, but evidence of two additional proteins—elastin and laminin. They also found structures uncannily resembling the cells found in both blood and bone, as well as cellular basement membrane matrix. And there were, once again, hints of hemoglobin, gleaned from applying hemoglobin-specific antibodies to the structures and seeing if the antibodies would bind to them.
Note that establishment scientists like those at Physorg are still trying to claim that this kind of soft tissue is somehow or other magically preserved over tens of millions of years, but NO competent scientists are still putting out the sort of garbage which the one cretin posted above claiming that the material is inorganic.
Your own argument is internally inconsistent. You state that it should be obvious that all other HOMINIDS were further removed from us than Neanderthals (which incidentally is true). This sounds like you accept that other HOMINIDS were earlier than Neanderthal. Then you go on to say that Neanderthals are basically an advanced extinct ape. [An ape which makes complex tools, uses fire, makes jewelry and other objects, and buries their dead.]
I presume you also agree with Bishop Usher that the first humans were created on Oct. 23, 4004 BC, based on his very exact examination of the precise length of time of all the begats.
Gorillas and chimpanzees cannot be taught English due to the lack of voluntary control over breathing. They learn deaf signs with no problems and at least one of the gorillas who has checks out as having an IQ in he 110 - 115 range which is perfectly adequate for half of all American jobs.
No law of physics prevents something unrelated to us from being intelligent or competent.
I presume you also agree with Bishop Usher that the first humans were created on Oct. 23, 4004 BC, based on his very exact examination of the precise length of time of all the begats.
I.E. you presume that anybody and everybody who does not subscribe to your own ideologically motivated belief systems regarding origins is an idiot.
The dating schemes you've read about all your life are based on untested assumptions and circular reasoning. There is no real way to claim any sort of a given age for the Earth other than Robert Bass' redoing of the Kelvin equations which indicated a max possible age of around 200,000,000 years and for the obvious comparison with Venus, a planet which actually is ballpark for some sort of 5K - 10K age estimate. Earth and Mars do not look like that at all and are clearly a good deal older, but not billions of years older.
Nothing "magical" about it: if organic material is sealed off from outside influences -- i.e. bacteria which eat the stuff -- then there is no limit to how long it can remain intact.
The example of bacteria sealed in salt deposits is a case in point.
But I should point out that your full quote above says just what I said previously: they found bits of collagen, and possibly some other organic materials, including maybe even remains of hemoglobin.
This is a very far cry from saying they found dino-cell-tissue or blood, much less DNA.
And clearly, there is still a lot to be disputed here.
So I'd say, to date those results are very interesting, but far from answering all the questions.
And now that dino-diggers know these sorts of things are possible, I'm certain they will be looking for more examples in the future.
Eventually, we'll see how close future findings come to matching these results.
“I.E. you presume that anybody and everybody who does not subscribe to your own ideologically motivated belief systems regarding origins is an idiot.”
Umm, pot / kettle.
Has anyone ever seen Obozo and the Geico caveman together?!?
There’s your proof right there!
It is strange how that as a parallel path of the 'record' the Darwinist are easing in with this 'mixing' of flesh humans with strange beings... That was after all the said cause of the flood of Noah's time.
I've seen nothing so far proving that Cro-Magnons & Neanderthals hanky-panked enough to produce offspring that were our ancestors.
The most I've seen is that Neanderthal and human DNA is so nearly identical, and humans so often, ahem, "undiscriminating" that interbreeding seems entirely possible -- certainly over a period of thousands of years.
Their DNAs are, for example, far more identical than horses & donkeys. But were they close enough that, unlike mules, their offspring would be fertile?
Some scientists have claimed to find evidence of Cro-Magnon / Neanderthal interbreeding in their DNA analysis. However, I don't understand what they've said, and their numbers seem to me suspect.
So I think we are entitled to wait, suspending judgment until stronger evidence is more clearly explained, and obvious questions answered.
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.
