Go to page [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ]
» Previous Page
» Next Page
|
|
Author
|
Message
|
|
|
|
|
Garden of Edan, Adam and Eve etc. People argue that God started creation in africA and that people or AFrica are the real choosen people. What's your opinion? |
|
|
|
|
Justin Cale wrote:
To John:
Lat time I checked there were around thirteen complete neanderthal skeletons, with dozens of additional fragmented ones and intact skull specimens. Geneticists scoped out mitochondrial DNA we retrieved from some of these skeletons, and it turns out we shared a common ancestor with neanderthals about 500,000 years ago.
Your second question, whether or not we'll be here for millions of years to come, pretty much depends on whether humans destroy themselves or not. Barring a freak accident like unexpected catastrophic climate change or an extinction-causing asteroid collision, we've got quite a bit of time left. In fact, we have around a billion years before the sun gets too hot for life to survive on Earth, and the Earth more or less becomes like Venus (not a very hospitable place).
We have around five billion years before the sun uses up its hydrogen fuel and dies in a supernova, obliterating the Earth and most of the solar system in the process. I think a billion years is plenty of time to develop efficient interstellar travel and locate another habitable world, but as I said, it depends on how many times we bomb ourselves into the dark ages, or if we destroy ourselves outright. Nukes are still very scary business.
You said "some of these skeletons". I thought there was only one fossil, and that the DNA substitutions was within the range of modern human DNA substitution variance. Were there others? Is that conclusive evidence for common ancestry, or hypothetical? |
|
|
|
|
Well, a couple of the skeletons are fossils (they've been turned into minerals) but others are just preserved, for instance freezing or accidental mummification (buried under desert sands). A thighbone found in Croatia had enough for scientists to sequence the entire mitochondrial genome of neanderthals; that DNA is the stuff from the mitochondria living in our cells, and is only passed down from mother to child. Researchers are still working on sequencing the nuclear DNA, which is bigger and takes more time.
The neanderthal DNA is closer to humans than, say, chimp DNA, but there are still significant differences. It was previously hypothesized that humans might have interbred with neanderthals; we did live alongside each other in Europe about 40 thousand years ago. However, now that we can see the genome, it's apparent that the DNA is just too different--humans and neanderthals are definitely two distinct species, and were most likely unable to interbreed. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Basic human society has only existed for about 10 thousand years"
"we did live alongside each other in Europe about 40 thousand years ago"
Perhaps you wish to clarify on this? |
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Human Society are the key words there--meaning moderately advanced culture, written language, use of technology, mid-to-large sized villages, simple city-states. Archeological evidence shows that this kind of society emerged around 10 thousand years ago.
However, humans as the species homo sapiens-sapiens have been around in our current form for about 200 thousand years, and for a chunk of that time, we shared parts of the Earth with neanderthals before they went extinct. What we'd call humans have been around even before 500 thousand years ago, but modern humans in our current form and species of Hss showed up in Africa 200k years ago. |
|
|
|
|
Justin Cale wrote:
Well, a couple of the skeletons are fossils (they've been turned into minerals) but others are just preserved, for instance freezing or accidental mummification (buried under desert sands). A thighbone found in Croatia had enough for scientists to sequence the entire mitochondrial genome of neanderthals; that DNA is the stuff from the mitochondria living in our cells, and is only passed down from mother to child. Researchers are still working on sequencing the nuclear DNA, which is bigger and takes more time.
The neanderthal DNA is closer to humans than, say, chimp DNA, but there are still significant differences. It was previously hypothesized that humans might have interbred with neanderthals; we did live alongside each other in Europe about 40 thousand years ago. However, now that we can see the genome, it's apparent that the DNA is just too different--humans and neanderthals are definitely two distinct species, and were most likely unable to interbreed.
Justin,
Out of curiosity, where are you getting this information? My understanding was that the mDNA was from just one fossil, and that the differences fell within the degree of variability of modern-day humans (Hss).
Which parts of the DNA are different, and with regard to being "too different", how so? What are the "significant" differences which would make them different species? What exactly makes them "definitely" different species?
John |
|
|
|
|
I'm going off what I learned in my college anthropology classes, the notes I took and some online research. Here's a good link about the bone I'm talking about:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807130824.htm
I apologize if I'm not making sense; I'm not a science major, but I do have a fascination for the subject and my girlfriend is a microbio major so we discuss this stuff a lot. This stuff is kind of complicated, and it's easy to get it mixed up.
|
|
|
|
|
Justin Cale wrote:
I'm going off what I learned in my college anthropology classes, the notes I took and some online research. Here's a good link about the bone I'm talking about:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807130824.htm
I apologize if I'm not making sense; I'm not a science major, but I do have a fascination for the subject and my girlfriend is a microbio major so we discuss this stuff a lot. This stuff is kind of complicated, and it's easy to get it mixed up.
Hi Justin,
For the sake of the discussion, my major was biology way back when. Science is part of my daily work now.
I understand what you're saying, but I also take into consideration that you were taught in a secular classroom at OSU. The truth is that the foundation of the teaching is that of a godless worldview, so if it means hammering a square peg into a round hole, so be it. I'm not trying to be offensive toward you, but it's the truth. Neanderthal skulls are not much different that modern male aborigine skulls in terms of browline and brain capacity. 9 of those 13 skeletons were found at one site. That's a lot to try and infer about a bone.
If you can list some of those differences in the mDNA that would definitively make them different from 2008 man, please share them.
Have a good night,
John |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, Justin. I did read it.
Talk later,
John |
|
|
|
|
|
Apart from theory, what evidence is there that humans spent 30,000 years without the basic aspects of society and where did you get your definition of what defines a basic human society? |
|
|
|
|
Darkriver, you are making a small mistake by misunderstanding the definition of theory. In the current vernacular, theory implies shaky judgement without much evidence. In the realm of science (peer review, lab studies) a theory is the closest you can get to proof without resorting to hard mathematics. Essentially, most everything will always be theory because there is always the potential to find new evidence. For example, gravity and nuclear decay are considered scientific theories but we're 99.99% sure they're real because of the evidence: gravitational attraction is constant, and a frightening example of nuclear decay working is the atomic bomb. The exact same science lets us do radiometric dating, it's just applied differently.
As for the evidence and definitions, most of it is archeological. The most basic kind of human society is a small village or wandering group. They are capable of making simple tools and dwellings but their level of technology and culture doesn't go much farther than that. The more advanced kind of society (the kind we've had for about 10k years) is largely dependent on written language, which was a huge step in human development. Most other advances like technology, agriculture and higher forms of organization followed from written language. The archeological evidence for that puts it about 9 or 10k years ago, with the earliest and simplest forms of symbol writing emerging around 7000 BCE. Written historical records start showing up a couple thousand years later, a notable example being the early Egyptian culture circa 4-3000 BCE. |
|
|
|
|
John, thanks for reading that article. I'll ask some of my anthropologist friends about neanderthals and do some research; the cool thing about dating a microbiologist is that you meet a bunch of different science majors.
It's nice to hear you studied biology--what is your current profession? |
|
|
|
|
Justin, you needn't worry about how I view "theory". I admittedly hold to the theory of God making me a theist. I am quite aware that there is little we can prove 100% so it is the probability of there being a God which leads me to this conclusion. This of course comes not only from scriptures but from natural study as well. I simply see the probability of there being a Higher being which then leads me to the study of theistic positions. The Christian position is consistent in my opinion over all other theistic positions.
Peace be upon you! |
|
|
|
|
Peace and long life to you as well. I respect that you have followed the evidence to what you feel is the best conclusion.
Thanks, I have enjoyed this discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Justin Cale wrote:
John, thanks for reading that article. I'll ask some of my anthropologist friends about neanderthals and do some research; the cool thing about dating a microbiologist is that you meet a bunch of different science majors.
It's nice to hear you studied biology--what is your current profession?
Hi Justin. True indeed about the science majors.
I'm a medical oncologist.
Have a good night,
John |
|
|
|
|
|
..........so about africa.... |
|
» Previous Page
» Next Page
Go to page [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ]
|
|
