another blow to atheists

[emprworm]

Evolution is not a part of abiogenesis, so it still is the changing of a gene pool. Evolution: the development of life. Not the creation of it. Pretty big difference in the context of things, I would have to say.

more dodging. you lied or made a statement in ignorance.

in response, i will simply quote what i said above:

"furthermore, I stated abiogenesis and evolution as seperate entities, so your false placade of a pseudo-intellectual attempt to slither your way out of your massive blunder FAILS. I said (exact words): that according to abiogenesis and your little faith-based religion called "evolution". I did not confuse abiogenesis with evolution, and you are STILL WRONG about the gene pool. Evolution is an ADDITION to genes, simply due to the fact that at this time there are many genes in the gene pool, and at one time there were few, and at one time there were none.

you are wrong, acriku. and this is nothing new, to be honest. "

as you continue to perpetuate your lies and/or blunder and/or scape goat, I will continue to cut and paste my response which refutes you at every attempt

[Acriku]

You posted that while I was posting mine, how am I going to know what you said then? Dur.

And you did confuse the two. You attributed the creation of life with evolution... "you know as well as I do that according to abiogenesis and your little faith-based religion called "evolution", that life began without a gene "pool", so to go from no gene pool to huge gene pool necessitates additions to the gene pool. lol acriku." You said according to evolution as well, which has nothing to do with the creation of life.

[emprworm]

you dodge and dodge like a slimy reporter, thus your red-herrings take the thread way off course. unfortunately, i am going to have to create a new thread now, as to bring back into focus the ignorance you have stated. i take liberty to do this in the light of the sheer plethora of anti-christian posts you make. so when you flub ike this, i will expose it with a search light. new thread coming...

[nemafakei]

"How many poor teenagers (yourself included?) were spoonfed the Neanderthal lie as if they were our ancestors"

I don't remember ever being told that Neanderthals were ancestors as a child. I don't know what they taught you, so...

[Warlord Ripskar]

The only thing his claim prooves is that American teachers are damn ignorant presenting theories which are about 70 years behind.

[Davidu]

Man, you're right!

[SurlyPIG]

I was never taught, never believed nor ever posted that Neanderthals were the ancestors of humans, rather that Neanderthals and humans shared a common ancestry.

Emprworm, if you're going to seriously debate evolutionary science then cork the Edric-style figure-eighted attacks (which in themselves show weakness of position) and propagating dancy-prancy point-avoiding mannerisms and actually debate it. If you compare the way Nema or Miles posts to the way you post you will see the things I'm talking about.

[Gobalopper]

Err from what I read the article said that humans and neanderthals are not genetic relatives hence they wouldn't share a comman ancestry either Ace. I don't think the DNA could change that much unless you are saying they all came from the same rock billions of years ago. ;)

The report lends evidence to the theory that anatomically modern humans emerged from Africa some 150,000 years ago and eventually displaced earlier humans, such as Neanderthals in Europe, but without mixing.

From reading that it seems there is absolutely no relation between the two. Simply that humans came out of somewhere, Africa according to one theory, and replaced neanderthals.

[SurlyPIG]

What makes you think that I meant they shared the same 'parents', so to speak. More like great grandparents or something. They are both primates.

[Gobalopper]

"That finding, according to the researchers, suggests modern man's ancestors has no links with genes from Neanderthal man."

To have no links between the two means there has to have been a very long time between the split if there even was one. But if you are going to go that far you could say humans are related to birds or crocidiles too. :)

[SurlyPIG]

I speak in technicalities Gob. It is my language. I actually don't remember saying anything about Neanderthals before now but since I was one of the accused in the first post I assumed the allegation was correct and explained what I must have meant.

We aren't able to map the genome of the Neanderthal but even mice are more than 99% similar to humans. To declare that there are humans and Neanderthals share no ancestry at all is quite premature, given that.

[DukeLeto]

The report lends evidence to the theory that anatomically modern humans emerged from Africa some 150,000 years ago and eventually displaced earlier humans, such as Neanderthals in Europe, but without mixing.

Ah, that still wouldn't help the Christians; If I recall, the Bible claims that mankind was created about 4,000 years ago...And wasn't Eden in the middle East?

(You say: "How would you know this?" Well, you know what they say, "Know thine enemy." ;))

[Gobalopper]

Well if you believe evolution there is obviously going to be a link between them at some point I'm not going to debate that. I'm just saying that the gap, if there is one, is rather large and larger then what was previously thought.

[Acriku]

That's correct Gob, but what empr doesn't realize is that this is just the progression of gathering evidences of our paleontological history. Not a debunk.

[Gobalopper]

Well I don't agree with everything emprworm posts either. :)

[Warlord Ripskar]

Homo neanderthalensis is the last species with skeletal characteristics recognisably distinct from Homo sapiens. Both forms share a common ancestry tracable from the Australopithecines, through Homo habilis and Homo erectus. The question is were Cromagnon man (Homo sapiens) and Homo neanderthalensis genetically similar enough to interbreed?

A small number of skeletons which exihibited characteristics of both groups were discovered lending weight to the theory that they could and did interbreed thus making Homo neanderthalensis a subspecies of Homo sapiens, ie, a race in tha manner of black/white etc. and not in itself a distinct species.

The only way to be sure was to conduct genetic tests to see if Neanderthal genetic markers were present in the unusual skeletons, this proved difficult due to the age of the bones so a study was carried out to look for the markers in the modern population. The first study failed to locate any groups with the Neanderthal markers but we would have to wait for tests on the fosils to be more certain. This appears to have been done though the article does not even mention which skeleons have been tested so its basic scientific veracity cannot be confirmed.

http://www.neanderthal-modern.com

This is a scientific site concerning the study in question as opposed to the laymans drivel worm presented.

Addition;

This document concerns the 'hybrid' remains.

http://www.glenn.morten.btinternet.co.uk/hybid.htm

[DjCiD]

:D The title of this topic is very misleading, I thought it was about Clinton getting head again... :O :D

This is the Politics Forum after all ::)

[sneezer3]

The report lends evidence to the theory that anatomically modern humans emerged from Africa some 150,000 years ago and eventually displaced earlier humans, such as Neanderthals in Europe, but without mixing.

Ah, that still wouldn't help the Christians; If I recall, the Bible claims that mankind was created about 4,000 years ago...And wasn't Eden in the middle East?

well, i'd have to bring into question the methods used for dateing them. As some modern methods don't work for known dates but are assumed to work for unkown dates. which of course isn't science