Early Evolution called into question

[hangover]

Right now they are preparing to land on a comet to see if life originated from them. That could reshuffle the evolutionary deck.

 

[rdean]

You don't need to finish a jigsaw puzzle to know what it's going to look like when it's done.

That would depend on the puzzle, not everyone restricts themselves to the 500 piece puzzles.

Magical Creation only has one piece. God did it.

 

[hangover]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6H5nNZb1M]Ultimate Argument for Evolution, Clip from the movie Paul (2011) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rdean]

In the 50's, you could go to a University and they would have one class on evolution.

Now, one University could have dozens of classes on all aspects of evolution.

Because of all the discoveries.

Not like Magical Creation. Bible School is enough.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know for sure you are lying and have not read the article.

And once again, you failed to respond to my point.

Case closed! You are not knowledgeable enough about this subject to even comment on it.

For one thing, it isn't an article, it is a paper.

If your point is that you know more than anyone else, I responded to it as much as i am going to when I addressed all idiots that think they have all the answers. If you missed it, I can sum it up for you by saying that I am more than willing to admit I don't know everything, and that what I do know is probably wrong. Until you deal with that, and with the fact that the actual paper, which you know i did not read, actually points out that there is a previously unknown branch of human evolution that needs to be addressed, you really have no points I need to address.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't know what you are trying to prove here, other than your profound ignorance concerning the evolution of humans.

Homo Erectus Colonization in Europe - Pakefield Homo erectus in England

The Oldest Homo Erectus

The oldest known Homo erectus site outside of Africa is Dmanisi, in the Republic of Georgia, dated to approximately 1.6 million years ago. Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca valley of Spain includes evidence of Homo erectus at 780,000 years ago. But the earliest known Homo erectus site in England prior to the discoveries at Pakefield is Boxgrove, only 500,000 years old.

Homo sap came out of Africa, the Dennisovians and Neanderthals, apparently, from Europe. And none of these groups evolved far enough apart that they could not intermix. That evidence is in the genes of modern man. All that the DNA from those bones established is that the history of our present species is a bit more complex than we previously believed. Overturned nothing, but added very interesting details.

What about Sima hominins, asswipe? Didn't you rad the article?

Yes, I read the newspaper article, and was amused by the lack of knowledge displayed by the journalist that wrote that article. Here is a much better and informative article;

Hominin DNA baffles experts : Nature News & Comment

Nuclear DNA, by contrast, contains material from both parents (and all of their ancestors) and typically provides a more accurate overview of a population’s history. But this was not available from the femur.

With that caveat in mind, researchers interested in human evolution are scrambling to explain the surprising link, and everyone seems to have their own ideas.

Pääbo notes that previously published full nuclear genomes of Neanderthals and Denisovans suggest that the two had a common ancestor that lived up to 700,000 years ago. He suggests that the Sima de los Huesos hominins could represent a founder population that once lived all over Eurasia and gave rise to the two groups. Both may have then carried the mitochondrial sequence seen in the caves. But these mitochondrial lineages go extinct whenever a female does not give birth to a daughter, so the Neanderthals could have simply lost that sequence while it lived on in Denisovan women.

When dealing with complex scientific subjects, newspaper articles invariably get the details totally screwed up.

Nice to see you admitting you were wrong in categorically dismissing the story, even if you didn't actually say it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right now they are preparing to land on a comet to see if life originated from them. That could reshuffle the evolutionary deck.

If panspermia is true we will not find that life came from comets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't need to finish a jigsaw puzzle to know what it's going to look like when it's done.

That would depend on the puzzle, not everyone restricts themselves to the 500 piece puzzles.

Magical Creation only has one piece. God did it.

That would be 1 more piece than you have to work with, and is not an accurate representation of the religious view.

 

[hangover]

and is not an accurate representation of the religious view.

Eh, it's actually hitting the nail on the head. Did you watch this perfect example of the Christian view?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

I know for sure you are lying and have not read the article.

And once again, you failed to respond to my point.

Case closed! You are not knowledgeable enough about this subject to even comment on it.

For one thing, it isn't an article, it is a paper.

If your point is that you know more than anyone else, I responded to it as much as i am going to when I addressed all idiots that think they have all the answers. If you missed it, I can sum it up for you by saying that I am more than willing to admit I don't know everything, and that what I do know is probably wrong. Until you deal with that, and with the fact that the actual paper, which you know i did not read, actually points out that there is a previously unknown branch of human evolution that needs to be addressed, you really have no points I need to address.

The bold print indicates where you have suddenly backtracked. That's a far cry from your initial claim that the articles (means the same as papers) supported your claim that the early evolution of man has come into question.

Which BTW, you still haven't gotten it right. The denisovans are not unknown...they are poorly known.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and is not an accurate representation of the religious view.

Eh, it's actually hitting the nail on the head. Did you watch this perfect example of the Christian view?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6H5nNZb1M]Ultimate Argument for Evolution, Clip from the movie Paul (2011) - YouTube[/ame]

Do you honestly think that Robert Bakker believes that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know for sure you are lying and have not read the article.

And once again, you failed to respond to my point.

Case closed! You are not knowledgeable enough about this subject to even comment on it.

For one thing, it isn't an article, it is a paper.

If your point is that you know more than anyone else, I responded to it as much as i am going to when I addressed all idiots that think they have all the answers. If you missed it, I can sum it up for you by saying that I am more than willing to admit I don't know everything, and that what I do know is probably wrong. Until you deal with that, and with the fact that the actual paper, which you know i did not read, actually points out that there is a previously unknown branch of human evolution that needs to be addressed, you really have no points I need to address.

The bold print indicates where you have suddenly backtracked. That's a far cry from your initial claim that the articles (means the same as papers) supported your claim that the early evolution of man has come into question.

Which BTW, you still haven't gotten it right. The denisovans are not unknown...they are poorly known.

I didn't backtrack, I said that from the beginning. I also did not say that the Denosovians are unknown. Perhaps you should learn to read.

 

[Old Rocks]

Right now they are preparing to land on a comet to see if life originated from them. That could reshuffle the evolutionary deck.

Unless they find actual organisms, I really doubt that it will do that. However, the ratio of 'organics', their chirality, and the complexity of the 'organics' will be very important in forming scenerios of abiogenisis for the early earth.

 

[hangover]

and is not an accurate representation of the religious view.

Eh, it's actually hitting the nail on the head. Did you watch this perfect example of the Christian view?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6H5nNZb1M]Ultimate Argument for Evolution, Clip from the movie Paul (2011) - YouTube[/ame]

Do you honestly think that Robert Bakker believes that?

Ever check out the Scopes Monkey Trial?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

For one thing, it isn't an article, it is a paper.

If your point is that you know more than anyone else, I responded to it as much as i am going to when I addressed all idiots that think they have all the answers. If you missed it, I can sum it up for you by saying that I am more than willing to admit I don't know everything, and that what I do know is probably wrong. Until you deal with that, and with the fact that the actual paper, which you know i did not read, actually points out that there is a previously unknown branch of human evolution that needs to be addressed, you really have no points I need to address.

The bold print indicates where you have suddenly backtracked. That's a far cry from your initial claim that the articles (means the same as papers) supported your claim that the early evolution of man has come into question.

Which BTW, you still haven't gotten it right. The denisovans are not unknown...they are poorly known.

I didn't backtrack, I said that from the beginning. I also did not say that the Denosovians are unknown. Perhaps you should learn to read.

Yeah, right, you didn't backtrack except when you wrote this back on page 2

The new findings have essentially destroyed the theories about the early evolution of humans.

And this on this same page

previously unknown branch of human evolution

Man, you've got a memory problem. You can't even remember what you wrote.

 

[rdean]

That would depend on the puzzle, not everyone restricts themselves to the 500 piece puzzles.

Magical Creation only has one piece. God did it.

That would be 1 more piece than you have to work with, and is not an accurate representation of the religious view.

God did it. That's the religious view.

 

[Old Rocks]

The bold print indicates where you have suddenly backtracked. That's a far cry from your initial claim that the articles (means the same as papers) supported your claim that the early evolution of man has come into question.

Which BTW, you still haven't gotten it right. The denisovans are not unknown...they are poorly known.

I didn't backtrack, I said that from the beginning. I also did not say that the Denosovians are unknown. Perhaps you should learn to read.

Yeah, right, you didn't backtrack except when you wrote this back on page 2

The new findings have essentially destroyed the theories about the early evolution of humans.

And this on this same page

previously unknown branch of human evolution

Man, you've got a memory problem. You can't even remember what you wrote.

Ol' Flat has more than a memory problem. He comes on stating that he is an expert on scientific matters, then claims our species is only 40,000 years old. And that 400,000 years comprised the majority of the present ice age.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Eh, it's actually hitting the nail on the head. Did you watch this perfect example of the Christian view?
Ultimate Argument for Evolution, Clip from the movie Paul (2011) - YouTube

Do you honestly think that Robert Bakker believes that?

Ever check out the Scopes Monkey Trial?

Ever read a book?


Didn't think so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The bold print indicates where you have suddenly backtracked. That's a far cry from your initial claim that the articles (means the same as papers) supported your claim that the early evolution of man has come into question.

Which BTW, you still haven't gotten it right. The denisovans are not unknown...they are poorly known.

I didn't backtrack, I said that from the beginning. I also did not say that the Denosovians are unknown. Perhaps you should learn to read.

Yeah, right, you didn't backtrack except when you wrote this back on page 2

The new findings have essentially destroyed the theories about the early evolution of humans.

And this on this same page

previously unknown branch of human evolution

Man, you've got a memory problem. You can't even remember what you wrote.

Yes, humans, as in Homo Sapiens, not primates. Funny thing, we now know that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were around at the same time, we didn't know that when I was in school. Fortunately, I didn't stop paying attention after I learned about Homo Sapiens in 5th grade, so I know that those theories were wrong. I also know that, despite what we knew last year, Denosova hominins were not restricted to a small area in Siberia. We also know that another branch of ealry humans known as Sima de los Huesos hominens were coexistent, and interbred, with both Denosova and Neanderthals.

But, please, feel free to tell me again how much you know from me not reading the paper.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Magical Creation only has one piece. God did it.

That would be 1 more piece than you have to work with, and is not an accurate representation of the religious view.

God did it. That's the religious view.

No, that is the idiots view, which is why you keep repeating it.