Real Science Radio: The Most Informative Neanderthal Show Ever Pt. 2

[Jukia]

Lon also breaks the irony meter.

 

[Lon]

Lon also breaks the irony meter.

How intrepid!

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

:nono: Truth is truth no matter where it comes from

This is to say that truth is true. Indeed it is, but this is a tautology. The contention here is whether or not the claim as made by 6days, is the truth. That is what we disagree on. If only it were as simple as declaring what we believe the truth, then what need have we for evidence?

and you'd be an idiot (frankly) to think the scientific process is the only 'source' of it. That's really 'stupid' thinking, frankly.

I don't believe I've ever stated this. In any case this discussion has consisted of 6Days asserting that the science supports his position of faith that neanderthals are the ancestors of anatomically modern humans. In his faltering attempt to do so, he has receded into assuring me that his faith is its own evidence. He has failed the standard as he has set for others (i.e., not invoking religion in a Evolution v Creation debate).

Beyond that, what he is claiming is "God's Word" is merely an inference he has made based upon his particular biblical hermeneutic. To call that "God's Word" is asinine in every sense of the word. Not to mention a wee bit presumptuous.

On top of that? Truth stands no matter what lack or advance we might possess to apprehend it.

Again, a meaningless tautology. Of course the truth is true. The question here is whether or not what is believed is true. Believing something doesn't make it true. We can only 'know' something is true if it can be defended rationally and empirically. If it cannot be defended rationally and empirically, then it's probably not true, and the holder never had good reason to believe it anyway.

 

[Lon]

This is to say that truth is true. Indeed it is, but this is a tautology. The contention here is whether or not the claim as made by 6days, is the truth. That is what we disagree on. If only it were as simple as declaring what we believe the truth, then what need have we for evidence?

We likely differ on how much we think we can verify is true. I'm saying what is true is true whether you or I verify it or not. We can change opinions but we are powerless against what is constant/true. God and whatever He says will remain constant are logically and philosophically and biblically, the only constants, verifiable or not (doesn't matter if we can or cannot).

I don't believe I've ever stated this. In any case this discussion has consisted of 6Days asserting that the science supports his position of faith that neanderthals are the ancestors of anatomically modern humans. In his faltering attempt to do so, he has receded into assuring me that his faith is its own evidence. He has failed the standard as he has set for others (i.e., not invoking religion in a Evolution v Creation debate).

Agree. I was using some of your reasoning's implications to enter the discussion. The discussion between science and religion will always lead to respective concerns but I'm saying we are more on page if both theologians and scientists are doing what they are supposed to. For the most part, it isn't over data, it is over 'interpretation' of data.

Beyond that, what he is claiming is "God's Word" is merely an inference he has made based upon his particular biblical hermeneutic. To call that "God's Word" is asinine in every sense of the word. Not to mention a wee bit presumptuous.

If you are talking about 'interpretation of' well and fine. If not, :nono:

Again, a meaningless tautology. Of course the truth is true. The question here is whether or not what is believed is true. Believing something doesn't make it true. We can only 'know' something is true if it can be defended rationally and empirically. If it cannot be defended rationally and empirically, then it's probably not true, and the holder never had good reason to believe it anyway.

On interpretation of facts, we agree. On what one is 'capable' of asserting about imperical, I likely disagree quite a bit. "Evidence" doesn't always or even nearly always lead to facts (opinion, endeavoring to reveal educated derivative). The sooner we all get on page with this, the sooner, I think, we can jointly move forward on a theology/polical/philosophy/science discussion forum, at least on some matters. I just think it's good to discern and point out which is which so that we can banter over what is debatable and move along from what is not. It is mho that much debate comes from assertion of pseudo-facts. It is when assumed 'facts' collide that debate tends to become rigorous.

In this case, what 'can' and 'can't' we know about the fact that Neandrathal DNA and ours is nearly identical? Kind of undoes the 'link' theory in my mind. At the very least, science is having to take a few sheepish steps back from bold assertions. That's a good thing. Any time my child's textbooks can be corrected to reflect what many of us thought was rather obvious, is a good step in the right direction.

 

[6days]

Neandertal humanity does not hinge on DNA, but that is one of many evidences. The best evidence ....the only one that ultimatly matters is Gods Word. We know that all humanity are descendants of Adam and Eve.Science also confirms the humanity of Neandertals. They created art. They used jewelery and makeup. Neandertals made tools. They farmed and had healthy diets. They created music. Neandertals cared for their young...and the elderly. Neandertals seemed to understand some chemistry making things such as pitch.

And here we have it. One failed evidence and you are already appealing to faith.

What failed evidence are you talking about? DNA?
DNA IS just one of many evidences of the humanity of Neandertals.

It is evolutionists who keep changing their stories.
Going back to an article in 1997,the scientific journal Cell declared “Neanderthals were not our ancestors.” and said that Neanderthals and modern humans last shared a common ancestor 550,000–690,000 years ago.
(From Cell 90,Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans)

Biblical creationists pointed out flaws in that study with an article titled “Rate heterogeneity and site by site analysis of mtDNA suggests Neanderthals and modern humans share a recent common ancestor", presented at a Creatiion Biology Society conference.

Further research by the initial researchers (Published in Cell) partly confirmed what Creationist Dewitt had already stated. Neandertal MtDNA was very similar to our MtDNA but varied on points where there is variance between living humans. But at this point evolutionists still said No interbreeding had ever happened.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6777/full/404490a0.html
and an article by Krigs and Paabo .... "DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the Neandertal type specimen." in National Academy of Science

In 2003 Biblical Creationist Dewitt made the following presentation still claiming Neandertals and us shared a recent common ancestor.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/neanderthal/neanderthals-humans-gene-pool

In 2010 New research reversed much of what the 1997 report said...and was closer to what Creationist scientists had claimed.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.abstract

and
" By comparing this composite Neandertal genome with the complete genomes of five living humans from different parts of the world, the researchers found that both Europeans and Asians share 1% to 4% of their nuclear DNA with Neandertals. But Africans do not. This suggests that early modern humans interbred with Neandertals"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/680.summary

or, more recent from April 2014
"Our analysis allows us to conclusively reject a model of ancestral structure in Africa and instead reveals strong support for Neandertal admixture in Eurasia at a higher rate (3.4−7.3%) than suggested previously. Using analysis and simulations we show that our inference is more powerful than previous summary statistics and robust to realistic levels of recombination.
http://www.genetics.org/content/196/4/1241.abstract

So Evolutionists have backpedalled and now say it seems Neandertals and 'moderns' interbred about 37,000 years ago.....Not 550,000–690,000 years ago. The evolutionists still aren't quite correct on their dates but are about 600,000 years closer to correct than they previously were.

We know that all humanity are descendants of Adam and Eve.

I'm sure you believe this. Belief is not knowledge. We don't know any such thing.

I don't expect you to agree with me on that point DS. But I think most Biblical creationists would agree "We know based on knowledge, that all humanity are descendants of Adam and Eve".

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

We likely differ on how much we think we can verify is true.

Most likely.

I'm saying what is true is true whether you or I verify it or not. We can change opinions but we are powerless against what is constant/true.

Sure, there are probably plenty of true statements about reality which we have yet to verify. As Carl Sagan once pondered "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."

But this hardly does us in this discussion any good until we can assign truth, to statements about reality. I don't know if this is what you are saying, but I bristle with the notion that we can just know things without verification.

Agree. I was using some of your reasoning's implications to enter the discussion. The discussion between science and religion will always lead to respective concerns but I'm saying we are more on page if both theologians and scientists are doing what they are supposed to. For the most part, it isn't over data, it is over 'interpretation' of data.

I think the conflict arises when you attempt to interpret the data with a pre-determined conclusion in mind. In the scientific realm, peer-review and independent reproducibility is intended to mitigate this. Certainly some 'interpretations' fit the data better than others.

If you are talking about 'interpretation of' well and fine. If not, :nono:

I am talking about both, but for the purposes of this thread 'interpretation of' works just fine to make my point.

On interpretation of facts, we agree. On what one is 'capable' of asserting about imperical, I likely disagree quite a bit. "Evidence" doesn't always or even nearly always lead to facts

You've got it backwards, methinks. Facts -- and when I say facts I mean verifiable observations -- together constitute evidence of certain propositions.

The sooner we all get on page with this, the sooner, I think, we can jointly move forward on a theology/polical/philosophy/science discussion forum, at least on some matters. I just think it's good to discern and point out which is which so that we can banter over what is debatable and move along from what is not. It is mho that much debate comes from assertion of pseudo-facts. It is when assumed 'facts' collide that debate tends to become rigorous.

I think this may be due to an imprecise understanding of what 'facts' are. If facts are merely true statements, then sure. I tend towards a more precise definition, to avoid just this. Usually when I speak of facts, I'm referring to verifiable observations. These kind of facts are disagree on less often.

In this case, what 'can' and 'can't' we know about the fact that Neandrathal DNA and ours is nearly identical?

Very similar, and yet distinct enough to recognize that they are different to all living humans today. I think the disagreement is on what constitutes 'us', how human does something have to be to be regarded as 'us'?

At the very least, science is having to take a few sheepish steps back from bold assertions. That's a good thing. Any time my child's textbooks can be corrected to reflect what many of us thought was rather obvious, is a good step in the right direction.

What "many of us thought was rather obvious" is not indicative of veracity.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

What failed evidence are you talking about? DNA?
DNA IS just one of many evidences of the humanity of Neandertals.

Neanderthals are human in the sense that they belong to the genus Homo and they are very similar to us, but your claim that Neanderthals are our ancestors is most certainly false. The DNA simply doesn't show what you want it to show. After realizing that the science you claim backs up your assertion, does not in fact make any such claims, you've retreated to assertions of faith.

So Evolutionists have backpedalled and now say it seems Neandertals and 'moderns' interbred about 37,000 years ago.....Not 550,000–690,000 years ago. The evolutionists still aren't quite correct on their dates but are about 600,000 years closer to correct than they previously were.

The article you supplied doesn't claim they "interbreed 550,000-690,000 years ago" it claims that's when our last common ancestor lived. You misreading your source is not indicative of a backpedal.

In either case, your claim is still wrong. We share a common ancestor with neanderthals, i.e., they are our cousins not our ancestors.

I don't expect you to agree with me on that point DS. But I think most Biblical creationists would agree "We know based on knowledge, that all humanity are descendants of Adam and Eve".

Do you suppose that creationists agreeing on some matter is sufficient to establish it as true?

 

[6days]

Neanderthals are human in the sense that they belong to the genus Homo and they are very similar to us...

Yes...VERY similar to us. You and I are also similar to each other, just as we are also similar to Asians, Australian Aborigines, and Pygmies. Neandertals are simply a people group that has gone extinct.

but your claim that Neanderthals are our ancestors is most certainly false.

Im sure you believe that, the same as evolutionists used to believe Neandertals were stooped over hairy dimwitted beasts. But science has proven the evolutionists wrong on those points and many others

The DNA simply doesn't show what you want it to show.

The DNA evidence isnt what YOU want it to show...but it is what creationist Dewitt predicted.

The reason evolutionists were so surprised at the 2010 results of Neandertal DNA sequencing is that it wasn't what they wanted. It is the Creationists who basically were saying 'told ya so'.

After realizing that the science you claim backs up your assertion, does not in fact make any such claims, you've retreated to assertions of faith.

Isn't it interesting that it is actually the evolutiinists faith which has been proven wrong about Neandertals. T Neandertals were not the stupid carnivores without culture....that evolutionary faith once claimed.

Science / archaeology has shown the Biblical creationists was correct as we now know about the humanity of Neandertals.

In either case, your claim is still wrong. We share a common ancestor with neanderthals, i.e., they are our cousins not our ancestors.

Nope... it seems you either aren't understanding, or not believing, it seems many of us are descendants of Neandertals.


My great-great-great grandfather’s a Neanderthal
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/my-great-great-great-grandfathers-a-neanderthal/

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Yes...VERY similar to us. You and I are also similar to each other, just as we are also similar to Asians, Australian Aborigines, and Pygmies. Neandertals are simply a people group that has gone extinct.

Is that something you'd like to put to the test? That neanderthals have no more genetic differences to us than Asians do? What say you? Let's test it and find out if your claim holds.

Im sure you believe that, the same as evolutionists used to believe Neandertals were stooped over hairy dimwitted beasts. But science has proven the evolutionists wrong on those points and many others

Isn't it interesting that it is actually the evolutiinists faith which has been proven wrong about Neandertals. T Neandertals were not the stupid carnivores without culture....that evolutionary faith once claimed.

Do you have any references in scientific peer-reviewed publications that make these claims? I've already asked you once, and you dodged it like you always do. You are basing your assertions on cartoonish characterizations, no more.

The reason evolutionists were so surprised at the 2010 results of Neandertal DNA sequencing is that it wasn't what they wanted. It is the Creationists who basically were saying 'told ya so'.

It makes no difference to me whether Neanderthals were ancestors or cousins, my position doesn't require them to be either. The scientific consensus was once that they were our ancestors, but now the evidence points towards cousin. I'm simply arguing what the current evidence shows, if the current evidence showed that they were ancestors, then that's what I would believe. The scientists don't "want" the neanderthals to be anything and if they did why are they so willing to change the model of human origin to reflect the best available data? There is no ideological reason to favor cousin over ancestor, that's simply what the evidence shows.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

Science / archaeology has shown the Biblical creationists was correct as we now know about the humanity of Neandertals.

We've always known that Neanderthals were human, the question is how closely related they are to anatomically modern humans.

Nope... it seems you either aren't understanding, or not believing, it seems many of us are descendants of Neandertals.


My great-great-great grandfather’s a Neanderthal
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/my-great-great-great-grandfathers-a-neanderthal/

[/QUOTE]

Your link doesn't show that. Read it. It talks about modern humans (Homo Sapiens) interbreeding with neanderthals. That would be a pretty impressive feat if modern humans didn't already exist at that point.

more importantly you've still ignored, as I predicted you would, the more recent findings that Modern humans and Neanderthals didn't interbreed.

Neanderthals 'unlikely to have interbred with human ancestors.

Why are you ignoring the more recent findings? I know why.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Neanderthals 'unlikely to have interbred with human ancestors'

How inconvenient this must be for you 6Days? Better ignore it.

 

[Lon]

Most likely.

Sure, there are probably plenty of true statements about reality which we have yet to verify. As Carl Sagan once pondered "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."

But this hardly does us in this discussion any good until we can assign truth, to statements about reality. I don't know if this is what you are saying, but I bristle with the notion that we can just know things without verification.

For me: "...and/or vise versa." Meaning, some people are frankly 'too' smart (meaning unbelievable, jumping to conclusions based on supposedly intelligent assertions.
I went to college to think so naturally when any one or two profs asserted something where I highly doubted the connecting dots, they went crying to the dean. The dean told them what I told them: "Teach who is paying your salary! (loved that dean).

I think the conflict arises when you attempt to interpret the data with a pre-determined conclusion in mind. In the scientific realm, peer-review and independent reproducibility is intended to mitigate this. Certainly some 'interpretations' fit the data better than others.

From my experience? They cry and moan like babies with any challenge. Frankly? That's EXACTLY why debate frustrates them and why creationists or any other frustrate them. "We are being hindered in our discovery!" <-- Lie. They (or you or I) shouldn't 'get' to pick our peer reviews all the time or else it is bandwagon and false. I genuinely do think too much of that is going on, and self-admittedly, even among creationists with our agenda. Personally, I have no problem with someone challenging if I 'interpret' scripture correctly or not. That is between the peer-reviewer and me, not between scripture and God so I'm not defensive other than to whatever conviction I carry that my understanding is right. I'm not really anti-science at all. I'm anti-linguistics and and over interpretation of data (just like my peers over mine). It is mho that many in both groups get too big for their shorts. Without peer review, a seeking of mutual truth is no longer the functional goal and we fight over our contrived dogmas and interpretations rather than what is true. So-what-if some things either thinks/believes is true is scrutinized along the way? If it is actually true and not an interpretive derivative, it will stand on its own merit.

I am talking about both, but for the purposes of this thread 'interpretation of' works just fine to make my point.

To certain degrees. This is where we respectively overstep bounds. We try and assert over one another beyond what we believe is true. For me, however, having an appeal to ultimate authority helps steer what I believe about facts. Scientists, leaving that assumption behind, will indeed be searching a bit more in the dark (granting that said is true). Therefore, it would be good, as a scientist, to actually use scripture to help steer scientific inquiry. For instance: If God truly did create man unique and in His image, and if God made animal groups to produce 'after its kind' then we necessarily would have to qualify what is and isn't possible by scientific terms. For this example, I reject 'evolution' and rather say "after its kind.' God did create animals to produce after their kind so Darwin's observations about finches was fine within that construct. Some scientific terms actually eliminate God from the equation and there are scientists that try to purport a purposeless existence from random evolutionary (non sentient) processes.
They don't help 'real' scientists (it is an artificial term, some are actually doing beneficiary science but being antiproductive to the science and religious communities).

You've got it backwards, methinks. Facts -- and when I say facts I mean verifiable observations -- together constitute evidence of certain propositions.

No, this is our respective paradigm difference. I am more than convinced that things can exist whether you can verify them or not? Why? Because you are a finite (meaning limited thus unable to verify all truths) being.
Being finite, you (nor I) can verify every truth. It is a logical impossibility and absurdity. I don't mean to sell science too short, only that it is only 'capable' of limited verification. There are all kinds of absurd people on TOL that think otherwise and try to do double-blinds on prayer etc. Such is a person whose god and reason are sold exclusively to science. Those individuals are obsolete and absurd.

I think this may be due to an imprecise understanding of what 'facts' are. If facts are merely true statements, then sure. I tend towards a more precise definition, to avoid just this. Usually when I speak of facts, I'm referring to verifiable observations. These kind of facts are disagree on less often.

I'm not sure if we are on the same page. I live as if 1+1=2 is a fact, a constant that cannot change, but I also live with the belief that individual and corporate expressions and appreciations of love cannot be (at least in any full sense) quantified. The dynamics are beyond the ken of any lab or test imho.

Very similar, and yet distinct enough to recognize that they are different to all living humans today. I think the disagreement is on what constitutes 'us', how human does something have to be to be regarded as 'us'?

Yep. Great question. Hitler thought it was just blonde aryans that were 'we.' I'm not sure what he was going to do with Italians or Japanese after the war. I'm not sure I'd go for a girl with a unibrow and strong forehead but that doesn't mean she was at all inferior to me.
On a scientific note, I'm saying I agree but it looks scientifically as more alike than not. Such has implications for how we write our textbooks. Most of us with these concerns simply want more facts and less drawn conclusions in our primary and secondary education programs. Teach kids to draw their own conclusions: WAY better than current drawn-conclusion propoganda trends. Yes, go ahead if you are a corporation looking for something specific. If you are paying for it, you can search/explore wherever you like. If, however, you are using all the public's tax money, you really need to represent fairly what you are being paid to represent by said community and their children.

What "many of us thought was rather obvious" is not indicative of veracity.

Exactly. I don't want my Bible quoted in class persay either. I'm saying 3 steps back from assertion should be the goal. A christian kid and a nonchristian kid both can learn a lot about science together without having to hear assumptions on either's part. We know that the science community gets some leeway because they are teaching their field of study, but 'some' and 'overt' leeway is different. Corporations are perfectly suited to indoctrinate whoever they like after a student gets the elements and chemistry and biology (etc.) basics. I really don't know of any scientific endeavor at the moment that depends upon whether the earth is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old, at the moment. Let NASA teach/train or require what they need for a rocket to take off and let the rest of us concentrate more on what isn't controversial. Why waste my tax dollars (and/or your's)? It doesn't make sense. Teach what we don't fight about.

 

[Lon]

How inconvenient this must be for you 6Days? Better ignore it.

I'd think it the opposite when their 'model' looks like Jimmy Durante!

:doh:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I'd think it the opposite when their 'model' looks like Jimmy Durante!

:doh:

I'm uncertain as to what this is supposed to mean.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

For me: "...and/or vise versa." Meaning, some people are frankly 'too' smart (meaning unbelievable, jumping to conclusions based on supposedly intelligent assertions.
I went to college to think so naturally when any one or two profs asserted something where I highly doubted the connecting dots, they went crying to the dean. The dean told them what I told them: "Teach who is paying your salary! (loved that dean).

I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you accepted the before mentioned notion, that I bristle with?

From my experience? They cry and moan like babies with any challenge. Frankly? That's EXACTLY why debate frustrates them and why creationists or any other frustrate them.

I disagree, but I don't see what that matters anyway.

"We are being hindered in our discovery!" <-- Lie. They (or you or I) shouldn't 'get' to pick our peer reviews all the time or else it is bandwagon and false.

Is that how you think peer-review works?

I genuinely do think too much of that is going on, and self-admittedly, even among creationists with our agenda. Personally, I have no problem with someone challenging if I 'interpret' scripture correctly or not. That is between the peer-reviewer and me, not between scripture and God so I'm not defensive other than to whatever conviction I carry that my understanding is right.

That seems to be precisely the problem.

I'm not really anti-science at all. I'm anti-linguistics and and over interpretation of data (just like my peers over mine).

I would contend that you would accept some interpretation of data if it is consonant with your religious convictions, even if another interpretation better fits the data.

It is mho that many in both groups get too big for their shorts. Without peer review, a seeking of mutual truth is no longer the functional goal and we fight over our contrived dogmas and interpretations rather than what is true.

I don't think you understand properly the culture within the scientific community.

To certain degrees. This is where we respectively overstep bounds. We try and assert over one another beyond what we believe is true. For me, however, having an appeal to ultimate authority helps steer what I believe about facts.

The only thing that should steer what you believe is the likelihood that a given statement is true.

Scientists, leaving that assumption behind, will indeed be searching a bit more in the dark (granting that said is true).

We are all searching in the dark, whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

Therefore, it would be good, as a scientist, to actually use scripture to help steer scientific inquiry.

No it wouldn't for reasons I've already elucidated.

For instance: If God truly did create man unique and in His image, and if God made animal groups to produce 'after its kind' then we necessarily would have to qualify what is and isn't possible by scientific terms. For this example, I reject 'evolution' and rather say "after its kind.' God did create animals to produce after their kind so Darwin's observations about finches was fine within that construct. Some scientific terms actually eliminate God from the equation

No, God is eliminated from the equation because he is empirically undetectable by the instruments of science we have available to us. He is unmeasurable and untestable, and therefore outside the confines of the scientific method. This is not to say he doesn't exist, but that he is not subject to the scientific method.

and there are scientists that try to purport a purposeless existence from random evolutionary (non sentient) processes.

Purpose is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

No, this is our respective paradigm difference. I am more than convinced that things can exist whether you can verify them or not?

I've already acknowledged that there are many truths we cannot verify, but this does not grant us license to assume the truth of any unverifiable claim we like.

I'm not sure if we are on the same page. I live as if 1+1=2 is a fact, a constant that cannot change, but I also live with the belief that individual and corporate expressions and appreciations of love cannot be (at least in any full sense) quantified. The dynamics are beyond the ken of any lab or test imho.

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

Yep. Great question. Hitler thought it was just blonde aryans that were 'we.' I'm not sure what he was going to do with Italians or Japanese after the war. I'm not sure I'd go for a girl with a unibrow and strong forehead but that doesn't mean she was at all inferior to me.

A great sentiment but it hardly solves the quandary.

On a scientific note, I'm saying I agree but it looks scientifically as more alike than not.

The same could be said of chimpanzees. It seems like where ever we draw the line is arbitrary.

Such has implications for how we write our textbooks. Most of us with these concerns simply want more facts and less drawn conclusions in our primary and secondary education programs. Teach kids to draw their own conclusions: WAY better than current drawn-conclusion propoganda trends.

I hope you appreciate the irony of this statement.

Yes, go ahead if you are a corporation looking for something specific. If you are paying for it, you can search/explore wherever you like. If, however, you are using all the public's tax money, you really need to represent fairly what you are being paid to represent by said community and their children.

Which is why there is a rigorous scientific process, that creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute are trying to circumvent by appealing to the voters.

We know that the science community gets some leeway because they are teaching their field of study, but 'some' and 'overt' leeway is different. Corporations are perfectly suited to indoctrinate whoever they like after a student gets the elements and chemistry and biology (etc.) basics. I really don't know of any scientific endeavor at the moment that depends upon whether the earth is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old, at the moment.

Is this a serious statement?

Let NASA teach/train or require what they need for a rocket to take off and let the rest of us concentrate more on what isn't controversial. Why waste my tax dollars (and/or your's)? It doesn't make sense. Teach what we don't fight about.

We're talking about the fundamentals, here. This isn't some quibble over whether Bengalia Africana belongs to Bengaliidae or Bengaliini. The age of the earth, the cause and extent of biological diversity, how fossils are dated, how reliable various dating methods are, what the fossil sequence represents, how sediments are laid down... these are fundamentals of science. These are things you need to understand to be competitive globally.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Estimates based on DNA show that the last common ancestor of H. sapiens and Neanderthals lived around 400,000 years ago. This made H. heidelbergensis, a widespread species alive at the time, seem like a good candidate for that ancestor. The new study contradicts this idea. The tooth reconstruction of the last common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals created by Gómez-Robles and colleagues doesn't match the teeth of H. heidelbergensis. In fact, the researchers found that none of the human species living during the time predicted by genetic data fit the tooth pattern generated by the new study. More than that, "European species that might be candidates show morphological affinities with Neanderthals," Gómez-Robles says, which hints that these humans were already on the Neanderthal side of the split. This suggests that the last common ancestor of H. sapiens and Neanderthals lived sometime earlier, perhaps as far back as one million years ago. What does it mean? Paleoanthropologists have yet to find our last common ancestor with Neanderthals. Tracking this elusive human will require going back to museum collections and continuing searches in the field. From the new study's results, Gómez-Robles says that "we think that candidates have to be looked for in Africa." At present, million-year-old fossils attributed to the prehistoric humans H. rhodesiensis and H. erectus look promising. This critical window of human prehistory in Africa is still cloudy. "There are not so many African fossil remains dated to one million years ago," Gómez-Robles says, and those that have been found are often attributed to H. erectus. But do they really belong to this species? There may be an as-yet-unknown human hiding in the mix, and this human may be key to solving the puzzle of when our ancestors split from Neanderthals. Whether that species is waiting to be discovered in the field or is hiding within the broken and scattered remains of fossils already collected is a mystery waiting to be solved.

Source

Neanderthals could not have been the ancestors of man, because modern man (homo sapiens) were already on the scene when they made first contact with neanderthals, so even if there was interbreeding (and this is contended), it only means neanderthals the ancestors of some humans, and not of anatomically modern humans generally. Homo sapiens were already around by the time they came into contact with neanderthals.

 

[Lon]

I'm uncertain as to what this is supposed to mean.

:doh: Their (the link) rendition of neandrathal looks a LOT like Jimmy Durante. "Didn't mix races?" Then how did we get Jimmy Durante? It was tongue-in-cheek but I'd think Jimmy would laugh.

 

[Lon]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you accepted the before mentioned notion, that I bristle with?

Good question. A notion or deravative or a notion greatly substantiated without controversy? See, to me, I think 'great controversy' means someone is overstepping quite a bit or not explaining themselves very well. The only two conclusions can be 1) incorrect or 2) idiot savant.

Which wrote my science book 'interpretation' as if it were fact???

I disagree, but I don't see what that matters anyway.

:nono: Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins et al cry like babies because of the persistent questioning of supposed 'facts.' I say "Good! Cry some more and after you blow your nose, answer the question!"

Is that how you think peer-review works?

:chuckle: Are you or am I the naive~ one? I love these questions because I don't mind if someone remotely thinks I'm naive. Doesn't bother me.

That seems to be precisely the problem.

Of course. Just like above, which of us is naive and which of us is laughing? After answering that: Does it help or hinder communication? We make our own beds, I firmly believe.

I would contend that you would accept some interpretation of data if it is consonant...

:idunno: as opposed to a vowel? I don't mean to be dense but I'm trying to figure out what your actual word was supposed to be, "consistent" or am I missing something (not a slam or anything, just not following)?

...with your religious convictions, even if another interpretation better fits the data.

The only thing that should steer what you believe is the likelihood that a given statement is true.

Yes and yes. The problem is that I have to appease/appeal to authority. It is my belief that the authority (God) cannot be incorrect or be corrected. Therefore there are only two places such can go wrong: The person telling me or the way I interpretted data myself.

I don't think you understand properly the culture within the scientific community.

:chuckle: (sorry) I'm a teacher. I'm fairly familiar with science within the education framework.

We are all searching in the dark, whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

I believe having an ultimate unfallible authority precludes such. That doesn't mean I get it right every time - I misunderstand my wife sometimes and I know her very well but that's not exactly in the dark.

No it wouldn't for reasons I've already elucidated.

I'm not convinced. If your teacher in school suggested or steered you in any scientific inquiry, you'd be wise to follow those directions. We learn from 'what we know' going toward what we don't better than when we aren't even sure what the question is supposed to be. That kind of science would be a very long time in coming around AND why we get into these conversations/debates.

No, God is eliminated from the equation because he is empirically undetectable by the instruments of science we have available to us. He is unmeasurable and untestable, and therefore outside the confines of the scientific method. This is not to say he doesn't exist, but that he is not subject to the scientific method.

Somewhat agree, but also disagree. Reminds me of the joke: Two scientists challenge God when they are finally able to clone a man. God accepts and begins gathering dirt. The two scientists begin gathering materials as well and God says: "Oh no, you two have to get your own dirt!"

Point? Even what we use comes from God.

Purpose is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

No, not correct. You do not discover penicillin by doing a purposeless experiment. The problem is simply the scope of inquiry and I personally believe a greater scope brings greater meaning to discovery. Discovering cures for disease is certainly a corporate concern of the one shelling out money, but such cannot have meaning without the greater encompassing of helping a good deal of humanity and their families. Doctors and scientists in medicine, for example, study ethics and other philosophical matters. Philosophy has a place in our actions and in regard to them.

I've already acknowledged that there are many truths we cannot verify, but this does not grant us license to assume the truth of any unverifiable claim we like.

Agreed but it doesn't preclude them either. When science and any other worldview collide, it is best to not ignore the other or disdain it. This is why there are problems yet.

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

That there are facts that no scientist can explain. He/she/they will never be able to climb into one family and qualify the matters of love that bind it together. A good many truths are relative and very hard to qualify or quantify by any science method BUT we all believe they exist, even without those qualifications.

A great sentiment but it hardly solves the quandary.

Solve? No. Helps one steer their further inquiries? Yep.

The same could be said of chimpanzees. It seems like where ever we draw the line is arbitrary.

Er, I absolutely disagree. I have absolutely no problem distinquishing any human being from a chimpanzee. Scientific? Sure it is. It isn't just appearance, it is behavior and a multitude of other differences as well. I have a very difficult time believing we have any common ancestor. On top of that "every animal producing after its kind" also enforces such notions. Science was waaaaaay to cocky to offer such up and still is. They think that 50 years or 100 and all objections would just go away? :nono: Franky, btw, that's all the more they have ever done with this. They have not fielded or entertained objections, even from their own community. Such is fairly poor discussion, fairly poor science reporting, and likely fairly poor conclusions. Its too bad they don't see the problem as one of their own making but it is.

I hope you appreciate the irony of this statement.

Oh sure. I'm not for teaching creation in school unless the class is set up for the discussion of politics behind our textbooks and wants to discuss those details. I'm simply saying it is really easy to take two steps back and simply write a textbook that gives basics and lets kids and their parents draw their own conclusions. Simply tell them what we 'know' collectively. We do agree on a bit.

Which is why there is a rigorous scientific process, that creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute are trying to circumvent by appealing to the voters.

The only thing I want is for us to move forward on agreements, not get to hung up over disagreements. Simply don't forward them in textbooks without qualifiers. It is better to write "We believe this tells us the earth is several million years old" than "the earth is several million years old." Problem (at least for me) solved.

Is this a serious statement?

Yes. See the example above.

We're talking about the fundamentals, here. This isn't some quibble over whether Bengalia Africana belongs to Bengaliidae or Bengaliini. The age of the earth, the cause and extent of biological diversity, how fossils are dated, how reliable various dating methods are, what the fossil sequence represents, how sediments are laid down... these are fundamentals of science. These are things you need to understand to be competitive globally.

No, I'm talking about these peripherals mostly. Can you list one (or three) 'fact' that creationists and scientists sqabble over that is basic science that cannot be done without the divergent assumption?

 

[6days]

You and I are also similar to each other, just as we are also similar to Asians, Australian Aborigines, and Pygmies. Neandertals are simply a people group that has gone extinct.

Is that something you'd like to put to the test? That neanderthals have no more genetic differences to us than Asians do?

Another DS strawman. WHAT I REALLY SAID... "You and I are also similar to each other, just as we are also similar to Asians, Australian Aborigines, and Pygmies."

Do you have any references in scientific peer-reviewed publications that make these claims?

Now you are using the fallacy of moving the goalposts.....
WHAT I REALLY SAID..."evolutionists used to believe Neandertals were stooped over hairy dimwitted beasts. But science has proven the evolutionists wrong on those points and many others"
I have given sources showing some of the false beliefs evolutionists had...Want more?

I'm simply arguing what the current evidence shows, if the current evidence showed that they were ancestors, then that's what I would believe. The scientists don't "want" the neanderthals to be anything and if they did why are they so willing to change the model of human origin to reflect the best available data? There is no ideological reason to favor cousin over ancestor, that's simply what the evidence shows.

Surely you don't believe that evolutionists have no problem admitting the creationists were correct all along??

Of course evolutionists have always had ideological reasons to deny the humanity of Neandertals. In spite of being proven wrong over and over about Neandertals, many evolutionists still cling to some of their old beliefs.

Science / archaeology has shown the Biblical creationists was correct as we now know about the humanity of Neandertals.

We've always known that Neanderthals were human, the question is how closely related they are to anatomically modern humans

Nope.... Evolutionists always tried to deny the humanity of Neandertals. Initially Neandertals were called a missing link and labelled as Homo neanderthalensis. (Now Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)

Evolutionists said this dimwitted creature was incapable of speech and did not bury their dead.

Evolutionists made many false claims as they portrayed Neandertals as a primitive evolutionary link.

The myths have been dispelled. Neandertals were grain farmers although evolutionists once said they were carnivores. Neandertals buried their dead...They cared for their young and old...Neandertals used tools...they created music...They wore jewellery and makeup....Their hyoid bone (speech) is same as ours....These are a few of the things evolutionists had wrong as they tried to deny humanity to Neandertals.

Nope... it seems you either aren't understanding, or not believing, it seems many of us are descendants of Neandertals.
My great-great-great grandfather’s a Neanderthal
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/featur...a-neanderthal/

Your link doesn't show that. Read it. It talks about modern humans (Homo Sapiens) interbreeding with neanderthals. That would be a pretty impressive feat if modern humans didn't already exist at that point.

The article says.....
"While humans and Neanderthals had children, only female humans and male Neanderthals produced a lineage that survived until today"

Lineage that survived until today...that would be descendants.

more importantly you've still ignored, as I predicted you would, the more recent findings that Modern humans and Neanderthals didn't interbreed.
Neanderthals 'unlikely to have interbred with human ancestors.
Why are you ignoring the more recent findings? I know why.

You really shouldn't just believe a news report is correct because it says what you already believe, or just because it is the most recent. ...Sometimes they can be correct...Sometimes not.

In any case I replied to that article with one from April 2014 that says
"Our analysis allows us to conclusively reject a model of ancestral structure in Africa and instead reveals strong support for Neandertal admixture in Eurasia at a higher rate (3.4−7.3%) than suggested previously. Using analysis and simulations we show that our inference is more powerful than previous summary statistics and robust to realistic levels of recombination.
http://www.genetics.org/content/196/4/1241.abstract


Somebody I know once said "Why are you ignoring the more recent findings? I know why" :devil:

 

[Jukia]

In any case I replied to that article with one from April 2014 that says
"Our analysis allows us to conclusively reject a model of ancestral structure in Africa and instead reveals strong support for Neandertal admixture in Eurasia at a higher rate (3.4−7.3%) than suggested previously. Using analysis and simulations we show that our inference is more powerful than previous summary statistics and robust to realistic levels of recombination.
http://www.genetics.org/content/196/4/1241.abstract

did you read that entire paper or just the abstract? If the entire paper, does it provide a time frame consistent with your interpretation of the Bible?

 

[gcthomas]

did you read that entire paper or just the abstract? If the entire paper, does it provide a time frame consistent with your interpretation of the Bible?

Funnily enough, I have read the paper, and it gives divergence times for the populations studied as 133 000 years and 339 000 years ago (plus or minus 10 000 years to 95% confidence). The paper seems to rule out the literalist interpretation of the Biblical dates.