Well, then, I suppose I would have to know what you consider to be “prehistoric.”
I mean, if you consider recorded history to begin with “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth,” then nothing is prehistoric, by definition.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The first nearly complete Neandertal skeleton, found in France in 1908
IrishSteel wrote:
From my understanding, not even a remotely complete skeleton has ever been found - so there’s a lot of speculation about the neanderthals and their actual anatomy, but very little hard facts - I’ve tried my best to understand the support for the being this hominid species, but to be honest, I simply see a short version of a human - you’d find as much anatomical diversity in the human species today as you find between the prototypical human and the proposed neanderthal . . .
Sorry, Irish, but that’s just not so.
In 1908, the first nearly complete Neandertal skeleton was found in Chapelle-aux-Saints in France, and in 1953 another nine complete skeletons were found in Shanidar caves, in Iraq.
The Neandertal genome has been thoroughly researched at the Max Planck institute in Germany, and the study has unequivocally established that the mitochondrial DNA of Neandertal Man falls outside the variation of modern human DNA.
http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/pdf1/Green_Complete_Cell_2008.pdf
Neandertal Man is our closest cousin, but he’s not quite us. Whether our species and his ever interbred is still a matter of controversy, of course, but whether his species and ours are the same is not.
[/quote]
I assume you are referring to the study by Matthias Kings, Anne Stone, Ralf W. Schmitz, Heike Kraintzki, Mark Stoneking, and Svante Pääbo that was published in a journal called Cell.
They analyzed a Neandertal sequence of the 378 base pairs of hypervariable region I of mtDNA, deduced from several short overlapping products of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).1
Since there are about 16,500 base pairs (bp) in human mtDNA, this analysis is based on just 2% of the sequence. They weren’t kidding when they said they examined a “short” sample. Furthermore, the region they picked to analyze is “hypervariable.” In other words, it varies a lot in modern humans. But despite this variation, all modern humans are considered to be humans. Small variation in this region does not make one non-human. If they had found differences between Neanderthal DNA and modern DNA in a region where there is no variation in modern human DNA, then their argument would have been much stronger. Their claim that they found a small variation in a tiny fragment of the DNA sequence that is known to vary greatly in modern human beings is less than compelling evidence that Neanderthals were a separate species . . .
By the way - that doesn’t even began to get into validity of the study based on questions of viable DNA material, stringing unconnected pairs together, etc.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Well, then, I suppose I would have to know what you consider to be “prehistoric.”…
Pre-human or transitional.
They’re just not out there. If you buy into the idea that they are then you have been duped.
It’s one of those things that general society just assumes when in fact there is a huge gaping hole of evidence that you could fly a Tu-160 bomber through.[/quote]
Made up your mind already, have you? Then I imagine reading Leakey’s book isn’t going to do you much good. What a shame.
In addition, recent tests have proven that humans can have as much as 12% variations when comparing their DNA today - there can be whole sections of the genome missing. If we can have this much variation today - what would a 30,000 year old human have in variation with us? Just posing the general question.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
The first nearly complete Neandertal skeleton, found in France in 1908
IrishSteel wrote:
From my understanding, not even a remotely complete skeleton has ever been found - so there’s a lot of speculation about the neanderthals and their actual anatomy, but very little hard facts - I’ve tried my best to understand the support for the being this hominid species, but to be honest, I simply see a short version of a human - you’d find as much anatomical diversity in the human species today as you find between the prototypical human and the proposed neanderthal . . .
Sorry, Irish, but that’s just not so.
In 1908, the first nearly complete Neandertal skeleton was found in Chapelle-aux-Saints in France, and in 1953 another nine complete skeletons were found in Shanidar caves, in Iraq.
The Neandertal genome has been thoroughly researched at the Max Planck institute in Germany, and the study has unequivocally established that the mitochondrial DNA of Neandertal Man falls outside the variation of modern human DNA.
http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/pdf1/Green_Complete_Cell_2008.pdf
Neandertal Man is our closest cousin, but he’s not quite us. Whether our species and his ever interbred is still a matter of controversy, of course, but whether his species and ours are the same is not.
I assume you are referring to the study by Matthias Kings, Anne Stone, Ralf W. Schmitz, Heike Kraintzki, Mark Stoneking, and Svante Pääbo that was published in a journal called Cell.
They analyzed a Neandertal sequence of the 378 base pairs of hypervariable region I of mtDNA, deduced from several short overlapping products of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).1
Since there are about 16,500 base pairs (bp) in human mtDNA, this analysis is based on just 2% of the sequence. They weren’t kidding when they said they examined a “short” sample. Furthermore, the region they picked to analyze is “hypervariable.” In other words, it varies a lot in modern humans. But despite this variation, all modern humans are considered to be humans. Small variation in this region does not make one non-human. If they had found differences between Neanderthal DNA and modern DNA in a region where there is no variation in modern human DNA, then their argument would have been much stronger. Their claim that they found a small variation in a tiny fragment of the DNA sequence that is known to vary greatly in modern human beings is less than compelling evidence that Neanderthals were a separate species . . . [/quote]
I always thought that some horny space alien dudes came down here, but forgot to bring the ladies. So, they found some hot female chimps and here we are.
That, or our planet exploded (explaining the asteroids) and the survivors managed to make it down here.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m really hoping someone will bring up Nebraska Man as “evidence”. Pleeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz, someone, pleeeeeezzz. I’m begging you. [/quote]
Okay. Since you asked so nice, here ya go.
Just look at that prominent brow ridge, and that protuberant nose. You can certainly imagining him crouching in his cave. A Neanderthal if I ever saw one.
Cristina, my favorite hot Romanian blonde chick, gives her views on how to be a good creationist.
(Couldn’t resist. She’s so cute.)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
She looks like the perfect missionary for your church. You guys are kinda taking the Fox News approach. (No females allowed unless they look reeeeeel good)[/quote]
Us guys? Last time I looked, I’m a singular, rather than a plural. And I don’t have a church, nor am I in the market for one.
But I’ll tell you what, I’ve shooed away plenty of missionaries, but if Cristina here came knocking on my door, I wouldn’t leave her standing on the porch for long.
Beg all you want, Push.
I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:…that’s a perfect example… of evolution, right there. Wide hips, firm buttocks, perfect breast size [i assume], healthy; the perfect specimen to reproduce with. That is why we find her attractive, it’s a genetic imperative, lol…
Into my trap ye fall!
See, it goes to show you that “evidence” can be explained in more than one manner.[/quote]
…anything can be explained differently, but when the evidence fits the profile, only one explanation is true: EVOLUTIONnnnn brothers! Praised be the selfish gene…