Journal FortKnox's Journal: DNA Proves AGAINST Evolution 51
ABC has a short article about how DNA shows that Neanderthal DNA is not 'human'. Is this a strike against the theory of Human Evolution?
Submitted this earlier. I'll delete this JE if it gets accepted.
Submitted this earlier. I'll delete this JE if it gets accepted.
Doesn't argue against evolution (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't argue against evolution (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't argue against evolution (Score:2)
The basic consensus is that neanderthals were a sub species of humans that split of from the successful lineage with homo heidlebergensis which was a find that made anthropolgists jump up and down saying YAY! pre-neanderthals!
Also while there was some interbreeding between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal the genes were swamped and basiclly lost. Except for one of my professors who I swear looks like a neanderthal. Heavy brow ridges, receeding chin, long sloping head and all.
Re:Doesn't argue against evolution (Score:2)
Personally, I don't see why many Christians feel the need to "disprove" evolution. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Re:Doesn't argue against evolution (Score:2)
More like Chimps and Bonobos (or Gorillas). Dogs and Cats aren't extremely close as far as Mammals go.
Re:Doesn't argue against evolution (Score:2)
Well, if you're of one of the idolatrous sects of "Christianity" that hold that the Bible (or any human) is inerrant or infallible (which [[most ]unfortunately] includes most who claim to be Christians), you can't exactly hold evolution to be true. It does contradict both of the [mutually incompatible] Creation stories in Genesis.
The sad thing is that the vast majority of Christians ae Biblically ignorant....
/me dons asbestos boxer briefs...
Old news (Score:2)
[1] BTW, evolution has now been proved IIRC by observing butterflies in the field, so it's no longer the theory of evolution, it's just
Re:Old news (Score:2)
Re:Old news (Score:2)
You just demonstrated the Theory of Gravity.
As for giving birth to a non-human, that's absurd - evolution doesn't work that way (despite what you may have seen in the X-Men comics). Evolutionary change isn't quick and flashy - it takes many generations of very small mutations to have any noticeable change.
Re:Old news (Score:1)
Re:Old news (Score:2)
I could be mistaken, however.
Re:Old news (Score:1)
Re:Old news (Score:2)
Re:Old news (Score:1)
When we take an antibiotic, we kill the colony (like the farmer killing the weed), but sometimes a few remain with a defense against the antibody. These will then, in a short time, multiple and cause much more painful and fatal diseases (flesh eating bacteria is one good example).
Over a long enough time and keeping the famer's weed killer constant, the weeds should evolve some defense
Re:Old news (Score:2)
the farmer wants to maximize his output and minimize his input. tons of grain per acre with the least fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide and water. gallons of milk per cow with the cheapest feed, pounds of beef per steer.
exceptional lines of crops and animals will yield higher market value and their genes are more likely to be
Flaw in process (Score:1)
Re:Flaw in process (Score:2)
The alien theories are actually convincing, if you believe that aliens could or actually have been visiting us. they also interweave with each other, and could all be connected if you look at it in terms of multiple visitations or regional visitations.
One of them says aliens genetically modified early humanoids so we were more controllable and capable to perfo
Wait I know this one.... (Score:2)
Some thoughts. (Score:2)
If you have extra information that means you believe in a different explanation (for example, that the Christian God created the Earth), then that is absolutely, soul-shakingly great. Anyone who begrudges you this or belittles you for this belief has problems.
On the other hand, I don't understand the level of animosity many religious peo
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
But evolution isn't openly reproducible. The only thing reproducible in science is that what is only begets what is. Therefore, if we base our interpretation on only what is openly reproducible, we'd have to concede that cats have always been cats, dogs have always been dogs, cows have always been cows, and humans have always been huma
No. (Score:2)
Similarly, science can say things about the plate tectonics - because the source material for the theories is right there, peoples' experiences of it are reproducible. On the other hand, nobody is going to believe you have achieved cold fusion (even if you have), until they can reproduce your experience.
Re:No. (Score:2)
Fossil records have produced no verifiable evidence of one species changing into another. Again, based just on fossils you'd have to concede that a cow has always and only been a cow.
-BrentRe:No. (Score:2)
So, based on fossils, I'd have to concede that a cow hasn't always been what we call a cow.
Same thing goes for horses [ufl.edu]. But then again, it's probably all a conspiracy by the godless athiest scientists, right?
Re:No. (Score:2)
You linked to a diagram of a "family tree" of horses. As far as I can tell, the first animal at the bottom of the tree is labeled as a horse, the last ones are labeled as a horse, and so is every one in between.
You didn't link to the cow example you mentioned, so I'm going to extropolate. I'm guessing that the species in India is a cow, and the species in Europe, Africa, and the Americas is ... a cow. I'm also guessing that the precursor was also ... a cow. But again, you d
Re:No. (Score:2)
Your argument is like stating that humans are organisms, and that bacteria are organisms, and so they're the same thing - an organism.
Re:No. (Score:2)
But they are still cows/horses/whatever. They just are less capable of changing, not more. To be able to *get* evolutionary change through breeding, you need the capability for animals to be able to breed with non-similar species. Not have them end up less capable of breeding with non-similar species.
A poodle probably can't breed with a great dane and produce little great dane-poodle babies.
Re:No. (Score:2)
You're using far too general terms. They may be what we call "cows", but they're still different species. The further you trace the evolutionary line back, the less and less "cow-like" they get and the more they start to resemble the other types of mammals - horses, primates, etc. Eventually, you find that lines merge, into common ancestors. That's evolution at work, and it's supported by the fossil record.
To be able to *get* evolutionary change through breedi
Re:No. (Score:1)
Not a conspiracy, but how can the same scientists who claim to follow a logical scientific process call evolution a theory?
The key to the scientific process is the ability to observe a consistent behavior/process, create a hypothesis and then test the hypothesis. With evolution, we have the first two, but still lack any means to test our hypothesis. We can't observe millions of years of history or even speed up t
I WASN'T hoping to debate evolution (Score:2)
I can't stress enough how little I want to debate the merits of evolution theory. If you have some other theory, I'm sure there's plenty of people who will want to hear about it.
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:1)
Look at the development of Siamese cats. (I wish I had some photos to demonstrate). ~100 years ago, Siamese cats had very round faces, blurred lines between to colors of fur, dull 'points', etc. Today, a Siamese has a skull that is perhaps 2/3 as wide for its body size as 100 years ago. The color borders are much sharper. They
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
furthermore, continuous subtle changes are not supported by fossil evidence. There are discrete species of skeletal remains.
secondly, you
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
That'd be because there's absolutely no way to find a fossil of each and every generation - finding an intact humanoid skeleton is rare as it is.
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:1)
I never claimed otherwise.
There are discrete species of skeletal remains.
Simple. There's only a slim chance of a fossil being preserved. If you hit a 'cascade point', there will be a line before and after a change in a species.
Just thought of something: I'm not 100% sure what various creationist theories espouse, how are fossil records expl
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
100 years ago it might have looked different. I look different from one of my great grandparents too. There is nothing special about that. But genetically, 100 years ago, a Siamese was a cat.
In another hundred years, will the animal even be recognizable?
The Siamese cats may continue to inbreed. That will make them look different. However, in a 100 years, they will genetically still be a cat.
Consid
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
Enjoy.
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
Sure it is. We've successfully bred new species of fruit flies and evolving new bacterial species is a piece of cake.
Ever since the beginning of time.
There weren't any cows or dogs sixty or even thirty million years ago.
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
Thanks for proving my point. You start with a few fruit flies, mate them together and end up with something different. Another fruit fly. Wake me again when you end up with a dragonfly, or a bumble bee. It just doesn't happen. A fruit fly will mate with different fruit flies and their offspring will *always* be different kinds of fruit flies.
Another example like the fruit flies is if a Norwegian and a Korean have a child. The child won't look comp
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
WTF? In other words, you acknowledge that evolution is capable of speciation but not of genus-creation.
A fruit fly will mate with different fruit flies and their offspring will *always* be different kinds of fruit flies.
No, a fruit fly wouldn't breed with different species of fruit flies. That's the
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
It is now, or at least it's right on the verge. I was wrong when I originally claimed field studies on butterflies -- it was cicadas. They've been observed mutating into a new species (i.e., creatures that can't interbreed with their progenitors) -- the very definition of evolution. While I don't yet believe anyone's formally claimed Darwin's theory to be proved, it's now looking very hopeful that the final proof will be delivered in the next few years.
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
What I find very odd is that "biblical criticism" (the authorship of the Old Testament in stages over a thousand years) is treated as absolute fact in college relgious studies classes, and is far more threatening to religious doctrine and is on far weaker ground than evolution, but receives almost no attention. Most religious Christians, Jews and
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
They (fundamentalists) have the unique problem of trying to fit the entire story of the universe into a box that they claim to understand completely. As soon as they say this, they attempt to be infinite in knowledge. Almost anyone that is not a
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
The problem I see is that it (evolution) is a poor explanation, whose author in Chapter VI: Difficulties of the Theory of "On the Origin of Species" admitted...
"Modes of Transition: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theo
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
I have no desire to clang heads on evolutionary theory. It may well be proved false one day. I actually don't care all that much - it's not very important to me. That was sort of my point - why is it so important to some people? My hypothesis: some people feel faith is too weak to survive the existence of a credible alternative, and some people who support evolution enjoy feeling superior to religiou
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
Hummm. Unfortunately for me, I thought I was really reasoning reasonably.
There's value to knowing what other people think, even if you don't think
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
There certainly is a meme within much of the religious community that our faith is held up for ridicule.
Pardon me, while I go and chuckle at myself now. I was thinking how "Those evolutionists, with their superior attitude, are so arrogant! Argh!!!" - and then the humor of that struck me. Not very Christ-like, eh?
It does get to be a drag though. It gets w
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
I'm sorry but "establishment clause". If you are not a Christian being taught "creationisim" is about as offensive as being taught about original sin, the holy trinity, or the resurrection.
Creationisim is but some sects of one religion's view of how the world came to be and what role a higher power ma
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:1)
While many people feel that evolu
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
Regarding the establishment clause, two comments: 1) For the first 150 years of the USA, the establishment clause existed to keep the government out of church. It was only in the 1920's that this was spun around to start kicking church out of government. 2) You have free will. I have free will. One of the great things about the USA is that we repect the rule of law that says an
Indeed (Score:2)
I guess the problem with creation is that the miracle in question is still visible. Looking around at the amazing universe we
Re:Some thoughts. (Score:2)
I see your problem. You are treating Darwin the way one would treat a prophet revealing divine information. Unfortunately, that's not the way science works. One doesn't quote Dalton when discussing modern theories about the atom and neither does one quote Darwin when discussing modern theories about biological processes.
Thanks to modern science
DNA is stupid. (Score:2)
Q.E.D.