Speciation

[Dirty Penguin]

From Wiki Newhopes most trusted source:

You can easily tell if a critter had claws or hooves by looking at the bones at the ends of the digits.

I'm sorry you can't understand anatomy... but relying on pretty illustrations is no way to assess anatomy and phylogeny.

I've said this to her on more than one occasion......

 

[painted wolf]

Oh PW it is time to take you on and embarrass you with all your garble. I usually ignore you because despite all your self trumpet blowing many here can mount a much better argument than you and appear to have better capacity to assimilate complex information, and use it rather than minimise and misrepresent same.

You can try... but if your goal is to embarrass me rather than have an honest discussion, you are going to be sorely disapointed.

Here is a chance to blow your trumpet with evidence....and how have I fudged the numbers. You lot are the oness that have a plethora of ways to account for comparisons. One way gives a 99.5% similarity amongst humans, which is similar to the neanderthal/sapiens comparison. I have provided links to information that suggests diet may affect DNA and be inheritable for generations. That's epigenetic's, dear.. The you come back and query what cancer has to do with it. I am tired of your oversimplifications PW. You have no wish to get to the bottom of anything. Rather you would rather go around in circles with half truths and misrepreserntations. Anyone with half a brain can read below and see what it says for themselves.

Yup... and they can see how you ignored the generally used method 9the one used to get the 95% figure with Neandethals) for the other method that will give the impression you wanted. That is classic cherry picking/number fudging.
I realize you likely don't understand why this is... but anyone versed in honest debate will.

And no half truths on my part, its right there in what you posted: Nucleotide diversity is based on single mutations called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The nucleotide diversity between humans is about 0.1%, which is 1 difference per 1,000 base pairs.[4][5][6] A difference of 1 in 1,000 nucleotides between two humans chosen at random amounts to approximately
3 million nucleotide differences since the human genome has about 3 billion nucleotides. Most of these SNPs are neutral but some are functional and influence phenotypic differences between humans through alleles. It is estimated that a total of 10 million SNPs exist in the human population of which at least 1% are functional (see International HapMap Project).

The comparison with modern humans and neanderthals is based on SNPs not copy number variation... you are comparing apples an oranges.
Yes, they are both fruit...but anyone who actually has experience with fruit knows they are vitally different.

This subtle choice of yours makes all the difference. As does your choice of an article that mentions 95% for Neanderthals when the number has been cited as high as 97%. Another interesting choice on your part to try to bolster your claim.

Epigenetics? - You are what you eat - Epigenome NOE

That is what my link has to do with it. Now do you understand? PW you are either very silly or puposefully play dumb trying to bamboozle your faithfull followers into believing you actually know what you are talking about.

Nope... I think you may have a misunderstanding of epigenetics.
Can you try to explain why you think this is relevant in your own words?

For example, how different do you think Neanderthal diets were to Anatomically Modern Humans that lived beside them for tens of thousands of years?

How can this difference account for the amazing differences between them and us?

Neanderthal is no more different than any human race is to each other. The sooner you understand that the better. If you want to call races chinese, african, neanderthal that is your way of providing desriptors and comparisons..fine.

Actually yes, they are more different than other humans are to each other. Modern humans have extremely low variability and no H.s.sapiens comes near to Neanderthals. The genome shows that they have very distinctive genetics from us as well.

Yes, every one knows that... and we lived separarely for 350,000 years (and there is research citing much more). Who is a misrepresenting boofhead ???

So... then you are proposing a mysterious something that influenced them but not us... even when we shared the same environment for tens of thousands of years?

Again you are misrepresenting and minimizing. We were separtated for 350,000 years, more in other research. Again PW what the hell are you on about? You lot are the ones that have made Neanbderthal human from being an ape man not that long ago, and now you are trying to bite your own butt.

Human yes...Homo sapiens sapiens no. If there is more genetic evidence in the future I may well agree with H.sapiens neanderthalensis as the consensus but I'm not yet convinced the data supports it right now.

I don't single us out as the only "humans"... I grant that all members of the Homo lineage.

Do you ever know what you are talking about and trying to say? Are you trying to go against your own classification of Homo sapiens neandethalis or what?

When have I ever used H.s. neanderthalensis? As far as I know it's not "my classification". Are you mistaking me for someone else?

What the hell is a subspecies when it comes to human beings? What crap!

Pretty much the same as with any other species. Genetically distinctive populations that are only remain so due to isolation by geography. There is at least one of them in our species H.s. idaltu.
Anatomically modern humans H. s. sapeins and Neanderthals were not separated by geography... but we maintained distinctive populations. This suggests that we were indeed separate species otherwise we would have freely admixed together.

Whether or not neanderthal the human interbred with other humans by another species name makes no difference to thier humanity. Just like a pygmy is as human as you or I and to say otherwise is racist. Leave the poor neanderthal alone. They had jewellry and art and were as human as you are.

I have never said that Neanderthals wern't human... or were any less human than we are. I have no idea why you are trying to paint me as a racist other than as a cheap way to try to attack me.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100111154914.htmYou are what your father ate
Size-related changes in cranial morphology affect diet in the catfish Clariallabes longicauda

......The article was not just about cancer, queen of misrepresentation. The article was about epigenetic changes being passed onto offspring as a result of diet. Diet can also affect morpholgy as in the cat fish research. Now you know !!!!?

You posted about diet and your link talked about cancer... if you had meant something else you should have said so rather than cutting and pasting and hoping for the best.

I'm still not sure why the link between diet and diseases like cancer, diabetes and stroke has to do with this? Your first link doesn't help at all unless you are suggesting that Neanderthals were diseased?

The paper on the fish is actually relevant... you should have used this one from the start! :yes:
Now, assuming that diet alone accounts for the Neanderthal morphology, we should expect to see similar morphology appearing in groups that eat a similar diet. But we don't.
Neither in the Anatomically modern humans that lived beside Neanderthals nor in modern peoples that eat a similar diet in a comparable environment like the Inuit.

Nor do we see the same patterns of growth through childhood (Neanderthal children grow much faster than we do), nor the differences in brain size (Neanderthal brains are significantly larger than our own).

In fact all humans reach maturity at the same rate and we all have brains the same size, no matter what our diet is.

So that's that for you. I'll be back to take up someone with some intelligent debate to be offered.

This comment makes me giggle a little. Thanks for cheering up the post. :angel2:

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Also nice cherry pick from Prof. Jones.

Here is the full article so people can see what he was really talking about... hint: It's not about how evolution is wrong!

View from the lab - Telegraph

A few other juicy excerpts from the article:

The latest search for identity turns on the number of links between brain genes.
Perhaps, like the internet, the key to how we work lies not in the individual parts but the way they are connected. A hard look does turn up a few extra links in our brains compared to those of chimps, but the effect is marginal and turns largely on one gene of unknown function.
For the intellectual descendants of Queen Victoria the news is painful: in our most human organ we are very ordinary primates.

Darwin's theory made us not less human but far more.

It's interesting how creationists will take an opinion piece on the ethics of animal experiments and twist it into an anti-evolution jumble.


If anyone is interested in what Prof. Jones actually thinks of creationism you can get it here:
Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right - Events Diary | Royal Society


wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

newhope: did you know that every time you fill your posts with insults and bluster, what you communicate is that you know your position is weak? Little tip for you. You're welcome.

 

[newhope101]

You can try... but if your goal is to embarrass me rather than have an honest discussion, you are going to be sorely disapointed.
Too late. I already have...amd any times since your chimp/human Y chromosome fiasco.You could ignore excess info if you thought it was irrelevant. The research on epigentics was clear as was the pufferfish showing DNA differences related to morphology. Rather you like to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Yup... and they can see how you ignored the generally used method 9the one used to get the 95% figure with Neandethals) for the other method that will give the impression you wanted. That is classic cherry picking/number fudging.
I realize you likely don't understand why this is... but anyone versed in honest debate will.
So give us your own take on it all. How about 99.9% similarity..will that do you???
And no half truths on my part, its right there in what you posted: Nucleotide diversity is based on single mutations called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The nucleotide diversity between humans is about 0.1%, which is 1 difference per 1,000 base pairs.[4][5][6] A difference of 1 in 1,000 nucleotides between two humans chosen at random amounts to approximately
3 million nucleotide differences since the human genome has about 3 billion nucleotides. Most of these SNPs are neutral but some are functional and influence phenotypic differences between humans through alleles. It is estimated that a total of 10 million SNPs exist in the human population of which at least 1% are functional (see International HapMap Project).

The comparison with modern humans and neanderthals is based on SNPs not copy number variation... you are comparing apples an oranges.
Yes, they are both fruit...but anyone who actually has experience with fruit knows they are vitally different.
Dear PW. According to your crappy science the DNA was so close that Neanderthal is classified as Homo sapiens, the new sketches look perfectly human, the foxp2 gene is supposedly human. Now you need to make up your mind because you cannot have it both ways. Are you trying to convince me that Neanderthal is nothing more than a chimp? Or are you just stuck on the half breed thing or may be 3/4?

Neanderthal USED to be upheld as a mid species PW, It isn't anymore..get with the program....If you are unable to assimilate complex information from multiple sources and analyse it, you will never rise to great heights in any field. One can only be the broom pusher in any field with out such functionality. I suppose that is why you are here all day taking up asides.

In addition to degradation and chemical damage to the DNA that can cause any ancient DNA to be irretrievable or misread, contamination of specimens, laboratory reagents and instruments with traces of DNA from modern humans must be avoided. In fact, when sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used, human mtDNA sequences can be retrieved from almost every ancient specimen23, 24. This problem is especially severe when Neanderthal remains are studied because Neanderthal and human are so closely related that one expects to find few or no differences between Neanderthals and modern humans within many regions25, making it impossible to rely on the sequence information itself to distinguish endogenous from contaminating DNA sequences. A necessary first step for sequencing nuclear DNA from Neanderthals is therefore to identify a Neanderthal specimen that is free or almost free of modern human DNA.

Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA : Article : Nature

After reading all this gobble I have confirmed you and your researchers definitely are confused and are unlikely to ever get any serious results due to contamination and all the crap they go on with to address it, with God not there to tell them they guessed it right for a change.
This subtle choice of yours makes all the difference. As does your choice of an article that mentions 95% for Neanderthals when the number has been cited as high as 97%. Another interesting choice on your part to try to bolster your claim.
As I have said many times one can pull a rabbit out of a hat and skew evidence to say whatever you want. Meaning mostly it is all rubbish.I have provided research that claims a 99.5% variation. If you do not like it then you go complain to your researchers.
LOOK...I CAN PULL UP A 99.9% SIMILARITY BETWEEN NEANDERTHAL AND HUMAN. DO YOU NOT AGREE WITH YOUR OWN RESEARCHERS. Is that similar enough for you??????

Neanderthal bone gives DNA clues - CNN.com
Humans almost identical to Neanderthals | Mail Online
Nope... I think you may have a misunderstanding of epigenetics.
Can you try to explain why you think this is relevant in your own words?
I understand the resesrch stated which you are ignoring. It is an aside to show that any difference may be no big deal. Now that I have provided researcher speaking to a 99.9% difference all your crap is mute anyway. The research illustrates how bad diet leadng to low birth weight is inheritable leading to changes in methylation and changes in DNA. Do you understand the research? It appears not. Now I have simplified it for you. No need to thank me.

If I said Neanderthal is not human you'd still be whining, misrepresenting and refuting me. It is just what you do!

 

[Autodidact]

Did you know that "refute" is a verb? And that we have a quote function?

 

[newhope101]

Because it isn't.



No it doesn't. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and even less about morphology......

Pakicetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pakicetus skull


Coyote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coyote Skull

I mean...REALLY..??????



What makes you think all we have are sketches? See above......Nothing about these two are the same.....

Ok ..let's get to the bottom of this. You have these classes that contain many different kinds. You may pull up whatever fossil is convenient to your cause. Ican do the same. GET IT? That's the fun behind this crazy theoretical science.

Take a look at this

About Mesonyx: 55-45mya

If you saw a picture of Mesonyx, you might be forgiven for thinking that it was ancestral to modern wolves and dogs: this Eocene mammal had a slender, quadrupedal build, with canine-like paws and a narrow snout (probably tipped by a wet, black nose). However, Mesonyx appeared way too early in evolutionary history to be directly related to dogs; rather, paleontologists speculate that it may have lain near the root of the evolutionary branch that led to whales (note its similarity to the land-dwelling whale ancestor Pakicetus). Mesonyx also played an important part in the discovery of another, bigger Eocene carnivore, the gigantic Andrewsarchus; this central Asian megafauna predator was reconstructed from a single, partial skull based on its presumed relationship to Mesonyx.

Mesonyx - Prehistoric Mammal Mesonyx Characteristics, Behavior and Habitat

Now you already know I think all this is crap and be be made to ahow whatever you want, like making whole representations that look convincing to the cause, made of a few scant bones. Got that? This can't be a dog only because they are not supposed to be there yet. Wooppie..great reason to poof them into something else with more convoluted theoretical science. This is not creationist stuff. This is from your evolutionary research that continues to refute itself.

However here you see one of your fictional drawings representing an animal that resembles a modern dog and has paws.

So will you let it go and just accept that you have many kinds represented in these groups and one of them is the DOG KIND. Stop refuting your own theoretical science!

We appear to be onto to humans now!

 

[painted wolf]

So now this is just another H.sapiens?

wa:do

ps... another "dog" with hooves? Will wonders never cease?

 

[Autodidact]

Ok ..let's get to the bottom of this. You have these classes that contain many different kinds. You may pull up whatever fossil is convenient to your cause. Ican do the same. GET IT? That's the fun behind this crazy theoretical science.

Take a look at this

About Mesonyx: 55-45mya

If you saw a picture of Mesonyx, you might be forgiven for thinking that it was ancestral to modern wolves and dogs: this Eocene mammal had a slender, quadrupedal build, with canine-like paws and a narrow snout (probably tipped by a wet, black nose). However, Mesonyx appeared way too early in evolutionary history to be directly related to dogs; rather, paleontologists speculate that it may have lain near the root of the evolutionary branch that led to whales (note its similarity to the land-dwelling whale ancestor Pakicetus). Mesonyx also played an important part in the discovery of another, bigger Eocene carnivore, the gigantic Andrewsarchus; this central Asian megafauna predator was reconstructed from a single, partial skull based on its presumed relationship to Mesonyx.

Mesonyx - Prehistoric Mammal Mesonyx Characteristics, Behavior and Habitat

Now you already know I think all this is crap and be be made to ahow whatever you want, like making whole representations that look convincing to the cause, made of a few scant bones. Got that? This can't be a dog only because they are not supposed to be there yet. Wooppie..great reason to poof them into something else with more convoluted theoretical science. This is not creationist stuff. This is from your evolutionary research that continues to refute itself.

However here you see one of your fictional drawings representing an animal that resembles a modern dog and has paws.

So will you let it go and just accept that you have many kinds represented in these groups and one of them is the DOG KIND. Stop refuting your own theoretical science!

We appear to be onto to humans now!

We already know, newhope, you think science is bunk, scientists are idiots, and you an do a better job by glancing at an artist's illustration than all the scientists who spend years actually studying and handling the fossils. We get it.

 

[newhope101]

So now this is just another H.sapiens?

wa:do

ps... another "dog" with hooves? Will wonders never cease?

Yep this guy is human. Not all of them are

Not much different to an Aboriginal skull, below.
http://au.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S0zu...d.com/userfiles/image/variants_large_4478.jpg


But this creature, Homo erectus, below is an ape




See the difference??????? Some of your researchers can't!!!!!!!!!



No a human is not a dog. I see you are confused!

 

[painted wolf]

So the pictures I posted aren't human then?

wa:do

And yes, neanderthals are much different from Aboriginal Australians.

 

[newhope101]

We already know, newhope, you think science is bunk, scientists are idiots, and you an do a better job by glancing at an artist's illustration than all the scientists who spend years actually studying and handling the fossils. We get it.

Simply saying I am wrong is no refute...in case you also are confused like PW.

You explain this creature with paws. WHAT'S YOUR EXPERT OPINION...WITH RESEARCH PLEASE....

For the moment I win.

Mesonyx ..with....guess what...PAWS.

It appears you are the one that is unable to fathom the incrediblility of your own evolutionary contradictions.

I have shown many kinds remaining the same, dogs, deer, cats and now humans. Plus humans were around with dinos. Just because you proffer a refute really means zilch in the grand scheme of things because apart from 'it all evolved' as a priori, the how, when, where and why is nothing more than a theoretical wish list, with plenty of debate.

On the other hand creationists, that place any value in your dating methods that is, will note ...cats, dogs, hippos, crocodiles, deer, have not changed much in around 55my. Humans were the last to be created and have been around for millions of years (by your dating) in Turkana boy, not much different than today. A novelist had a brain only 1000cc, and it does not mean much. He was also diseased, apparently, but human none the less. Therefore, the EVIDENCE supports creation ..not evolution. Kinds the same for yonks!!!!!


I have produced a 55myo dog. The dog kind have been around for 55my and your speciation woffle is a wish list. You have produced an opinion

AGAIN...I WIN....

 

[newhope101]

So the pictures I posted aren't human then?

wa:do

And yes, neanderthals are much different from Aboriginal Australians.

Last response to your asides. Yes this is human.

The skull is a human compared to Turkana Boy they are the same. Stop misrepresenting me.

I am done with you.

 

[newhope101]

Yep this guy is human. Not all of them are

Not much different to an Aboriginal skull, below.



But this creature, Homo erectus, below is an ape




See the difference??????? Some of your researchers can't!!!!!!!!!



No a human is not a dog. I see you are confused!

Can someone please give an intelligent reply? can anyone see the difference?

 

[painted wolf]

Take a closer look Newhope... hooves.

Here is the closely related Sinonux's foot... clearly showing it's hoofed toes.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Last response to your asides. Yes this is human.

The skull is a human compared to Turkana Boy they are the same. Stop misrepresenting me.

I am done with you.

But this is H.erectus... who you just said isn't human!

So which is it?

Is H.erectus human or ape?

I'm not trying to misrepresent you... but you've repeatedly changed your position in the span of a few posts... I want to know what your actual position is.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

PW there are many different representations of Erectus, Turkana boy is the human



This is Turkana Boy above and below from Wiki.






However the other erectus below is not the same, doesn't look the same and God only knows what desperation is involvd in trying to make them the same



It is so simple that even a half wit should understand, what I am saying.

 

[painted wolf]

So some H.erectus are human and some aren't then?

This one is human

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Take a closer look Newhope... hooves.

Here is the closely related Sinonux's foot... clearly showing it's hoofed toes.

wa:do

You appear to be refuting what this person with more credentials than you uses as a descriptor. here it is again with the bit you need to pay attention to in BOLD


About Mesonyx:

"If you saw a picture of Mesonyx, you might be forgiven for thinking that it was ancestral to modern wolves and dogs: this Eocene mammal had a slender, quadrupedal build, with canine-like paws and a narrow snout (probably tipped by a wet, black nose). However, Mesonyx appeared way too early in evolutionary history to be directly related to dogs; rather, paleontologists speculate that it may have lain near the root of the evolutionary branch that led to whales (note its similarity to the land-dwelling whale ancestor Pakicetus). Mesonyx also played an important part in the discovery of another, bigger Eocene carnivore, the gigantic Andrewsarchus; this central Asian megafauna predator was reconstructed from a single, partial skull based on its presumed relationship to Mesonyx."

Mesonyx - Prehistoric Mammal Mesonyx Characteristics, Behavior and Habitat

If you do not think they are classed as paws then you had best go tell 'em how it is, as you appear to have your own little take on what is or isn't a paw or hoof! Too bad other more important and higher credentailed persons use the desriptive term PAW. NOT HOOF.

Go tell 'em, PW

I'll say it AGAIN. Turkana Boy is the only fossil erectus or eragaster that is human. The rest are obviously not the same. The others have teeth that are non human also and obviously so.

http://au.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fau.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3F_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va%3Daboriginal%2Bskull%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=615&h=831&imgurl=img292.imageshack.us%2Fimg292%2F6167%2Faboriginalskull246go5.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vnnforum.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D87367&size=269KB&name=Fig.+245+%E2%80%93+Typic...&p=aboriginal+skull&oid=659406d6437b94094537e733abb84308&fr2=&no=4&tt=1950&sigr=11em018qq&sigi=11qp7dkjd&sigb=1302ba52e&type=JPG&.crumb=k9niHOn9u9J

Human skulls are varied. They are not all nice and rounded, dear...

Please do not play the fool!:slap:

 

[McBell]

Please do not play the fool!:slap:

What, you don't want the competition?