How best to argue against creationists

[painted wolf]

Homo is a genus not a species.
Our species is sapiens....

Thus Homo sapiens is a different species than Homo neanderthalensis. And we didn't mate very successfully, Neandertals left only a tiny fraction of their genes with us... if you read the research the Max Plank folks estimate it may be result of as few as one and not likely more than two or three successful matings.

I have no idea what your problem with the Drosophila experiments are... or with the section you quoted.
Male offspring between different species of Drosophila are sterile, due to a defect with their Y chromosome. This reinforces the fact that they are indeed separate species despite limited reproductive ability. This sort of hybrid sterility is fairly common in interspecies crosses. Mules for example, being a cross between a Horse and Donkey... Males are infertile, but female mules are, on occasion, able to bear offspring. (that in turn are ususally inftertile themselves)
This doesn't make Donkeys and Horses the same species.

There isn't often a distinctive line that separates one species from another... anymore than there is a distinct line that seperates you from your cousin.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Thanks Paintedwolf. I did think Homo was the species and sapiens the subspecies. I wish I'd read this earlier as I have just posted a connected question in another thead.

However, from memory, there were 5 individuals tested from different countries and 4 of the 5 had the identifiable Neanderthal gene. Only the African did not have it. I understand that only a small contribution was made 1-4%. However it appears unclear from the data how much interbreeding occurred. I expect that there should be no viable fertile males come out of the crossbreed. o only females bred successfully.I wonder if this informes the mitochondrial eve scenario?

Also I wonder about morphology. Did the 2 species look very different to each other? Was it more beastiality than 'love'? Certainly it appears that the ape like creature, neanderthal, is not represented as such these days.

So we have 2 different species interbreeding..an unknown amount. Me thinks perhaps they were not different species after all. The Homo tooth research suggests that the common ancestor has not been found yet. That is also interesting. I am keen to see the result of this research that should be out over the next few months.

Although gene flow from Neandertals into
modern humans when they first left sub-Saharan​

Africa seems to be the most parsimonious model

compatible with the current data, other scenarios
are also possible. For example,we cannot currently
rule out a scenario in which the ancestral population
of present-day non-Africans was more
closely related to Neandertals than the ancestral
population of present-day Africans due to ancient
substructure within Africa (Fig. 6). If after the
divergence of Neandertals there was incomplete
genetic homogenization between what were to
become the ancestors of non-Africans and Africans,
present-day non-Africans would be more
closely related to Neandertals than are Africans.
In fact, old population substructure in Africa has
been suggested based on genetic (​

​

​

​

[FONT=AdvTT50a2f13e.I][FONT=AdvTT50a2f13e.I]81​

​

) as well as
paleontological data ([FONT=AdvTT50a2f13e.I][FONT=AdvTT50a2f13e.I]86[/FONT][/FONT]).
In conclusion, we show that genome sequences
from an extinct late Pleistocene hominin can be
reliably recovered. The analysis of the Neandertal
genome shows that they are likely to have had
a role in the genetic ancestry of present-day
humans outside of Africa, although this role was
relatively minor given that only a few percent of
the genomes of present-day people outside Africa
are derived from Neandertals. Our results also
point to a number of genomic regions and genes
as candidates for positive selection early in modern
human history, for example, those involved in
cognitive abilities and cranial morphology. We
expect that further analyses of the Neandertal genome
as well as the genomes of other archaic
hominins will generate additional hypotheses
and provide further insights into the origins and
early history of present-day humans.​

References and Notes​

1. J. L. Bischoff [FONT=AdvTT66ad9447.I][FONT=AdvTT66ad9447.I]et al[/FONT][/FONT]., [FONT=AdvTT66ad9447.I][FONT=AdvTT66ad9447.I]High-Resolution U-Series Dates fro
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[evolved yet?]

Is it possible that the proposed similarity/interbreeding is just that they are so closely related that they have the same DNA?

 

[painted wolf]

Thanks Paintedwolf. I did think Homo was the species and sapiens the subspecies. I wish I'd read this earlier as I have just posted a connected question in another thead.

This is a potential problem with skimming information... a lot of biology is something that needs to be studied at length to understand.

However, from memory, there were 5 individuals tested from different countries and 4 of the 5 had the identifiable Neanderthal gene. Only the African did not have it.

There were two from Africa... southern and western. The other three were China, Papua New Guinea and France.
Neither from Africa had Neanderthal genes.

I understand that only a small contribution was made 1-4%. However it appears unclear from the data how much interbreeding occurred.

Given that mating is a 50/50 swap and that the total difference between Human and Neanderthal genomes are now known... it's not that hard to come to a rough estimate. It doesn't have to be very often at all.

I expect that there should be no viable fertile males come out of the crossbreed. o only females bred successfully.

Why should there be no fertile males? These genes are neither mtDNA nor Y chromosomal.. so they could have come from either gender.

[/quote] I wonder if this informes the mitochondrial eve scenario? [/quote] No... This was not mtDNA and would thus have no influence on the mtDNA "eve".

Also I wonder about morphology. Did the 2 species look very different to each other?

Fairly different... but we a flexable species.

Was it more beastiality than 'love'? Certainly it appears that the ape like creature, neanderthal, is not represented as such these days.

Who knows? I can't judge the motives... it may have been love, rape, or any number of other events.
Humans are very flexible behaviorally... Neandethals may not have been as flexible or they may have been. They weren't stupid... but there is some evidence that they were not as behaviorally plastic as we are.

So we have 2 different species interbreeding..an unknown amount. Me thinks perhaps they were not different species after all.

On what biological basis do you make this assumption? Wolves and Coyotes are different species, but they interbreed quite often.

The Homo tooth research suggests that the common ancestor has not been found yet.

Do you have a source for this?
Australopiths have teeth essentially identical to Homo... certianly enough for common ancestry.

That is also interesting. I am keen to see the result of this research that should be out over the next few months.

Agreed.

wa:do

 

[evolved yet?]

On what biological basis do you make this assumption? Wolves and Coyotes are different species, but they interbreed quite often.

Well maybe the biological species concept, the coyote/wolf thing is just because of our arbitrary classification and influence from the folk species classification concepts, the world is full of lumpers and dividers, I'm a bit of both.

 

[Danmac]

On what biological basis do you make this assumption? Wolves and Coyotes are different species, but they interbreed quite often.

wa:do

Same kind different species.:yes:

 

[McBell]

Same kind different species.:yes:

Define "kind"

 

[Autodidact]

IIRC, the last time Danmac defined "kind," it was the same as the biological concept of species.

 

[McBell]

IIRC, the last time Danmac defined "kind," it was the same as the biological concept of species.

I know.
That is why I asked for this new definition.

 

[lockyfan]

just the fact that each species in this world has different amounts of Chromosomes says that you cant mix breed to make a new species

 

[McBell]

just the fact that each species in this world has different amounts of Chromosomes says that you cant mix breed to make a new species

Really?
Then please tell me, what is a mule?

 

[Half Asleep]

Really?
Then please tell me, what is a mule?

I call it sterile. Although I suppose technically it's its own species. . . Or not. . .

Where's P-Wolf when you need 'em?

 

[lockyfan]

Yeah so would i.

It cant breed on its own as a mule though. they have to be bred with a male either donkey or horse.

Obviously part of the perfect order of things from Jehovah!

 

[evolved yet?]

Mules aren't a species because they can't breed and animals with differing numbers of chromosomes can interbreed to produce new species like the monkeys in Richard Dawkins latest book The Greatest Show on Earth.

 

[David M]

I call it sterile. Although I suppose technically it's its own species. . . Or not. . .

Where's P-Wolf when you need 'em?

Przewalski's Horse

33 pairs of Chromosomes compared to the domestic horses 32 pairs. Produces fertile hybrids.

 

[painted wolf]

Prezwalski's horse is a subspecies of Equis ferus... just like the domestic horse is. Which is why they produce fertile hybrids.

The horse (Equus ferus caballus) and the donkey (Equus africanus asinus) are not the same species... it isn't simply a matter of chromosome counts but also differences in functional proteins and genes, developmental history and so on.

The Coyote and the Wolf are not all that closely related... the Coyote evolved indipendantly here in the Americas while Wolves did their thing in Eurasia and then colonized the Americas at a later date.

wa:do

*ps... until an actual definition is developed and is adopted by "creation science" it is a totally meaningless term.

 

[David M]

Prezwalski's horse is a subspecies of Equis ferus... just like the domestic horse is. Which is why they produce fertile hybrids.

Nothing to do with my point, my point was that they have different chromosome numbers and the offspring are not sterile. Slightly different chromosome numbers alone can not be taken as an absolute bar to interfertility, reality shows us otherwise.

 

[painted wolf]

Nothing to do with my point, my point was that they have different chromosome numbers and the offspring are not sterile. Slightly different chromosome numbers alone can not be taken as an absolute bar to interfertility, reality shows us otherwise.

Apparently, I missed your point, sorry about that.
In this case though, people with Down's Syndrome are perhaps a better/more accessible example.

As I said.. infertility is more than chromosome number... it's functional proteins involved with reproduction, developmental factors, and a host of other genetic and environmental issues.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

Another example would be XYY males, men born with an extra Y chromosome and are usually not infertile

 

[Reptillian]

I just posted a new blog entry about intelligent design. Let me know what you think. Do you agree or disagree? Reptoavian's Blog: Intelligent Design