Speciation

[Dirty Penguin]

You have shown nothing to refute that there is a miacis cat, a creodonta cat

And you have not presented any evidence that Miacis was solely a cat. All you've done is gazed upon a crude color drawing and say...(well, it looks like a cat so it must be)...and you were unable to answer what the real life living "cat like" creature I posted....but you want us to just take your word for it simply because it "looks" like a cat....?

Oh, and for the umphteen time..Creodonta is not an animal....it is and "ORDER" of specific species......

LLuc is made to be a non event by your silly researchers because the human branch hadn't started yet. The point being that flat faced primates have been around for over 12 million years at least. These fossils you lot uphold as the progression of ape to chimp are nothing more than apes that have flatter faces. You and your researchers have turned them into half breeds. They aren't. There is an alternative explanation. Just like the Florensienses debarkle of opposing opinions, your researchers are gropping in the dark for anything they can find to make headlines and a name for themselves.

You're jumping all over the place and can't keep your arguments on one track. The article you presented does not hinder the ToE in any way. The researchers never said the fossils found were to be taken as part of human evolution.

Then you haven't been listening to your own researchers. About the only thing they agree on is "It all evolved".

Citing that humans are genetically related to orangutans further hurts your case for ancestry. I get it....You seem to think that because researchers say we're closely related to chimps or that we're closely related orangutans means that evolution is to be discarded and this is far from being true. What you fail to understand and continue to overlook is that "genetically" humans are related to primates.

OMG if you think that your researchers all agree on anything more than 'it all evolved' you are sadly mistaken as well as ignorant by nature or choice.

And where did I ever say all of them agreed?

Maybe you need to do BIO101 eg Pandas

Oh please... You are completely clueless as to why Pandas are placed in the order of Carnivora....You argue tooth and nail and completely fail.......

Where did I say that? and it doesn't matter because quite frankly I do not think your researchers have any clue. Neanderthal being human or not does not affect the creation model anyway. Straining the point out of desperation are you?

I'm not going to dig back through these two threads to show where you said (Neanderthals were just humans)....Now if Neanderthals don't affect you creation model can you tell us why not? Neanderthals existed at some point alongside H. Sapiens and yet there is some genetic difference as well as morphological differences. Additionally we can tell that interbreeding between the two distinctly classified hominids happened.

Don't ask questions that your own researchers can't even agree on. It makes you look sillier.

I ask how H. Neanderthal and H. Sapien fit into the creation model and the best you can do is look to our researchers and make insults.

Another point your own researchers with all their grants and hours of work can't agree on. Why do you wish to strain a point that means nothing?

I asked if that would make H. Neanderthal and H. Sapien were two distinct species considering you saing H. Neanderthal was human and all you ca do is insult. Why not just answer honestly with a yes or a no?

This can't simply be chalked up to "kind variation" considering you deny H. Sapien and Chimpanzee relationship even though the genome supports ancestry there as well.
The genome shows whatever your researchers want it to show and is crap. Did you know that 80% of the proteins in the human and chimpanzee genome are different? Unlikely! It is proteins, that are ultimately responsible for an organism's anatomical, physiological and behavioural characteristics.

Thanks for another non answer...

Dear remember all races fit the definition of separate species. You lot have called them races so you do not look quite as stupid.

Oh, so you believe H. Neanderthal was a different "race"...????????

 

[newhope101]

I've long since given up on educating Newhope... She clearly isn't inerested in learning or honest discussion... so, I'm in it for the lulz.

And for anyone who actually wants to learn about the topic. Do you happen to have any questions about early whale evolution?

wa:do

ps. it gives me an excuse to root around more in the literature.

Well, given you can't even tell where Ardi belongs and given that Lucy is more of a gorilla to some of your evo researchers I do not think you are in any position to have a shot at anyone here PW.

Even your precious Dawkins upheld Tiktaalic as the perfect transitional fossil only to be embarrassed,,and rightfully so.

BTW..you have done zilch to overturn anything I have said.

 

[newhope101]

And you have not presented any evidence that Miacis was solely a cat. All you've done is gazed upon a crude color drawing and say...(well, it looks like a cat so it must be)...and you were unable to answer what the real life living "cat like" creature I posted....but you want us to just take your word for it simply because it "looks" like a cat....? Your cat similarity just shows that your researchers are even less like to get anything right. With homplasy it is all guess work and wish lists. Miacis was arboreal and now it isn't. What makes you think any word on anything is final. How can you use any of this nonsense to debate. It wan't sit still for 5 minutes before the current flavour is overturned by new solid evidence.

Similarly you have not shown it to be anything otherwise. You only have maybe's. It appears to be a group of animals all very different from each other. But yes, one of them is a cat. With homoplasy and all your convergent evolution and all your excuses you only have wish lists.
Oh, and for the umphteen time..Creodonta is not an animal....it is and "ORDER" of specific species......
For the umpteen time I am telling you that there is a cat in there. Your researchers should have knocked it's representation up to not look like a cat, if it was meant to be nothing like a cat.




You're jumping all over the place and can't keep your arguments on one track. The article you presented does not hinder the ToE in any way. The researchers never said the fossils found were to be taken as part of human evolution.
Of course they didn't use Lluc as a human ancestor, it would blow your precious theory out of the water completely. Funny how the dating places Lluc outside the human line, when anything with a skeric of human hope gets thrown in as some amazing find. Indeed the fact that flat faced apes have been around for over 12 million years, means all your transitional human fossils are likely just Lluc's cousins and are nothing more than that. AS per usual the great hype about 'human facial features' confirming ancestry is rubbish, mush the same as the bipedalism delusion!



Citing that humans are genetically related to orangutans further hurts your case for ancestry. I get it....You seem to think that because researchers say we're closely related to chimps or that we're closely related orangutans means that evolution is to be discarded and this is far from being true. What you fail to understand and continue to overlook is that "genetically" humans are related to primates.
No it doesn't because all of your research is based on more probabilities and assumptions than you have had Sunday dinners. What it all says is that your researchers have no clue really and are just mooching around in the dark. This was just another example of thousands that illustrates you lot will accept what suits you and ignore the rest.



And where did I ever say all of them agreed?
Who says I was talking to you. You got the poops and took off. None the less, the fact that your researchers do not agree on many things shows that it is all as clear as mud, and flavour of the month reigns supreme. A pick a box game show.



Oh please... You are completely clueless as to why Pandas are placed in the order of Carnivora....You argue tooth and nail and completely fail.......
You are clueless re pandas. You were the one to say they are only partly herbivores, to my highlighting they were classed as herbivores, in some sort of hilarious refute to an aside, which is a really stupid thing to say given that most of them are only partly anything and that is the basis of this classification. Dahhh!


I'm not going to dig back through these two threads to show where you said (Neanderthals were just humans)....Now if Neanderthals don't affect you creation model can you tell us why not? Neanderthals existed at some point alongside H. Sapiens and yet there is some genetic difference as well as morphological differences. Additionally we can tell that interbreeding between the two distinctly classified hominids happened.
Oh no you cannot tell anything. What you can do is choose which research to shove in my face and ignore the rest. Some of your researchers are still in doubt stating that MAYBE a small percentage of admixture. In other words..they do not know..yet can make grandious claims about fossils much older. Other evo researchers think not. It is not real research DP and is just best guessing. Don't forget that Max Planck contaminated his first draft. Now I could make a real goose of these guys like you try to defame creationist researchers.

Inconsistencies With Neanderthal Genomic DNA Sequences

Genetic study of Neanderthal DNA reveals early split between humans and Neanderthals


I ask how H. Neanderthal and H. Sapien fit into the creation model and the best you can do is look to our researchers and make insults.
And I'll do it again. Here you go...your researchers have no clue what they are seeing in genomics. You said you would not look back over past threads to find where I said Neanderthl was human. Now you are refuting yourself in saying I did not take a stand. Well done!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=was-ardi-not-a-human-ancestor-after-2011-02-16

You lot cannot make up your mind about anything,It is pull a rabbit out of a hat as the need arises.

I asked if that would make H. Neanderthal and H. Sapien were two distinct species considering you saing H. Neanderthal was human and all you ca do is insult. Why not just answer honestly with a yes or a no?
Make up your mind. Did I take a stance or not. You seem unable to decide.
If some decent researchers would do some proper research without the assumptions it would be clearer. Again I say they are human and your researchers were desperate and stupis to ever think otherwise. Is that stance clear enough?

The Timing of Selection at the Human FOXP2 Gene
PLoS Genetics: Inconsistencies in Neanderthal Genomic DNA Sequences
This article speaks to the controversy re the Foxp2 gene research, contamination and inconsistency. You have researchers pooeying your own modelling
Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution
I think one would need to be a fool or desperate to swallow any of it. Neanderthal is humam because it's morphology is within the range of the great variation in skulls today.

Thanks for another non answer...

You are welcome!

Oh, so you believe H. Neanderthal was a different "race"...????????

Just one of your problems is you swallow whatever is fed to you. I'll bet you swallowed Tiktaalic as the irrefutable evidence of transition to land. I do not blame you as so did Dawkins. The point being it was crap and you swallowed it, just like you all swallow anything with great glee.

 

[newhope101]

Continued

On the other hand I would wait to see what else comes out. Neanderthal brains are different, and I most certainly do not trust any of your genomic data thus far. However the Aboriginal skulls show some similarity so I will side with they are fully human.

"Gilbert notes that Green's team went to extraordinary feats to prove that the Neanderthal sequence was unsullied by the DNA of its human handlers. Such bona fides should carry over to the complete genome, he says.
"When they do get the genome we can rely on it - really, that what we're getting is Neanderthal, not human." 2008

First Neanderthal genome completed - life - 07 August 2008 - New Scientist

My gut feeling is that Neanderthal is fully human, the intitial sketches were always a myth, your models are biased and flawed,and the genome says nothing at all about ancient ancestry and neither do your fanciful, complicated ever changing models. What does 1-4% mean? Answer: They do not know. Can't they tell? They are usually so specific. But you are correct in highlighting that it does not matter. Neanderthal is either fully human or he is not.and he doesn't look human to me. You already have many species of humans that you call races, so your researchers do not look quite as stupid.

Aboriginal Male


Neanderthal

I think your researchers were desperate to find an intermediate and Neanderthal was the poor sucker at hand. Let's not foret that they always had the same skulls to draw chimp man. Then a little DNA and Woollah...a morph. This is seriously ridiculous and highlights that your researchers really have no clue, are biased and desperate and one should not swollow anything they say.

Seriously debating with evolutionists is simply putting up one lot of nonsense to refute another lot of nonsense...but it passes the time.

 

[newhope101]

I love it when you provide known loons and con men as sources. Let's look at wiki:

Both scientists and creationists have criticized Baugh's claims. In 1982–1984, several scientists, including J.R. Cole, L.R. Godfrey, R.J. Hastings, and S.D. Schafersman, examined Baugh's purported "mantracks" as well as others provided by creationists in the Glen Rose Formation.[12] In the course of the examination "Baugh contradicted his own earlier reports of the locations of key discoveries" and many of the supposed prints "lacked human characteristics."[12] After a three year investigation of the tracks and Baugh's specimens, the scientists concluded there was no evidence of any of Baugh's claims or any "dinosaur-man tracks".[12]
On September 27, 1984, Al West, a Baugh co-worker for two years, who followed the mantrack claims since 1974, and friend of Glen Kuban, publicly announced that Baugh "never had evidence for manprints as claimed.[12] Gayle Golden, writer for The Dallas Morning News, reported that Baugh "paid $10,000 for his Moab skeleton and confirmed that Baugh knew at their purchase that the bones had already been dated at 200-300 years. However Baugh later claimed that the bones were found in Cretaceous deposits."[12]
One of Baugh's more famous claims, aside from the dinosaur tracks, is an alleged out of place artifact of an "18th century miner's hammer" found in million-year-old Ordovician rock (he has also claimed it is in Cretaceous rock) found in 1934 from London, Texas.[18][19] Baugh asserted this as evidence against scientifically known ways that rocks form.[18] However, laboratory tests discounted his claim about the hammer's being formed in the rock.[18][19] J.R. Cole wrote, "The stone concretion is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble."[20]
In July 2008, Baugh was in contact with Alvis Delk and James Bishop, who claimed to have found a dinosaur-human print fossil.[21] Bishop is a convicted murderer.[22] Baugh bought the "fossil" from Delk who used the money to pay his medical bills.[23] On the authenticity of the claims, reporter Bud Kennedy noted, "since no scientists were involved, about all we really know so far is that the museum has a new rock."[24]

What do you expect your researchers to say? Oh gee we were wrong.

Did anyone think it would not be refuted.

This is excellent evidence of a mob of researchers running around like chooks without heads trying to refute.

I wonder if they took such an interest in refuting the refute to tiktaalic. These prints are fairly crappy and I do not see anyone refuting them.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107114420.htm

The human/dino link is established and verified sufficiently and all your woffle is rubbish.

I am so glad they did not hand it over to evolutionary researchers who would have lost it or destoyed it.

Vídeo Why do evolutionists tamper with creation evidence? en VIDEOS.es

The Delk Track: Evidence of dinosaur and human coexistence Video

Your researchers went to great lengths to refute this evidence becuase they would all be out of a job.

 

[painted wolf]

Well, given you can't even tell where Ardi belongs and given that Lucy is more of a gorilla to some of your evo researchers I do not think you are in any position to have a shot at anyone here PW.

Even your precious Dawkins upheld Tiktaalic as the perfect transitional fossil only to be embarrassed,,and rightfully so.

BTW..you have done zilch to overturn anything I have said.

This is a perfect example of that dishonest discussion I was talking about.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

The Delk Print

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

I've long since given up on educating Newhope... She clearly isn't inerested in learning or honest discussion... so, I'm in it for the lulz.

I totally understand (I've been there). But, I personally don't find NewHope all that funny. In parlance she would understand, I woffle between whether she's just plain stupid or extremely delusional...or both.

ps. it gives me an excuse to root around more in the literature.

Again, I fully understand. My area of biology doesn't deal with fossils all that much, but my interactions with creationists have given me reason to learn a little bit more about them than I would have otherwise.

 

[painted wolf]

I totally understand (I've been there). But, I personally don't find NewHope all that funny. In parlance she would understand, I woffle between whether she's just plain stupid or extremely delusional...or both.

See I find her little foibles giggle worthy. Maybe not full out laughter inducing, but I can't help but grin when she states emphatically that she can "common sense" that a critter is "one kind or another" and then promptly labels a bear a cat.

Again, I fully understand. My area of biology doesn't deal with fossils all that much, but my interactions with creationists have given me reason to learn a little bit more about them than I would have otherwise.

And that alone is worth it to me... I'm always happy when people learn a little more about fossils than they would have otherwise.

wa:do

 

[Gunfingers]

If it helps, PW, you making creationists look stupid is one of the top reasons of why I keep coming back to this site.

 

[David M]

Just one of your problems is you swallow whatever is fed to you. I'll bet you swallowed Tiktaalic as the irrefutable evidence of transition to land. I do not blame you as so did Dawkins. The point being it was crap and you swallowed it, just like you all swallow anything with great glee.

Tiktaalic is evidence of transition to land, the fact that there were other early tetrapods before, concurrent with, and after Tiktaalik is not evidence against this but evidence that supports the transition to land.

But you can't understand the evidence let alone accept it.

My gut feeling is that Neanderthal is fully human,

As usual your gut feeling is completely wrong, as shown by the evidence from the Neandertal genome.

 

[painted wolf]

If it helps, PW, you making creationists look stupid is one of the top reasons of why I keep coming back to this site.

Honestly, it has never been my intention to make creationists look stupid. I enjoy answering honest questions and discussing honest concerns about evolution.

Having said that, I'm not infinitely patient and don't handle dishonest discussion with kid gloves... and some people are very skilled at making themselves look foolish.

The real credit should go to Newhope.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Tiktaalic is evidence of transition to land, the fact that there were other early tetrapods before, concurrent with, and after Tiktaalik is not evidence against this but evidence that supports the transition to land.
No it is evidence that your great finds never turn out to be so great afterall
But you can't understand the evidence let alone accept it.

You can't accept that this kind of thing makes your researchers including Dawkins look silly and confirms your irrefutable evidence is not irrefutable after all.

As usual your gut feeling is completely wrong, as shown by the evidence from the Neandertal genome.No, as a matter of fact you are hugely wrong, for all your big words and over developed sense of self importance

No it is not wrong and a 2 year olds guess is about as robust as and of your researchers claims.

It appears from all the woffle your researchers speak to as differences are nothing more than a nonsense.

For example one gene, RUNX2, plays a role in the shape of the skull, rib-cage, and shoulder joint—parts of the anatomy where Neanderthals differ from modern humans. Mutations to RUNX2 may have given Homo sapiens the anatomy that makes us unique among hominids.

http://www.archaeology.org/1007/etc/neanderthal.html

So here you have identified an gene that makes Neanderthal different humans. Have you ever thought that this could simply be a response to adaptations to cold or extremes.

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).

When copy number variation is included, human to human genetic variation is estimated to be at least 0.5% (99.5% similarity).[8][9][10][11][12] Copy number variations are inherited but can also arise during development.[13][14][15][16][17]
Human genetic variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then there is this

The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.

Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human | LiveScience

Then if Neanderthal was exposed to pathogens or diseases that the rest of humanity were not exposed to due to isolation that would account for some difference's also, as could a very different diet.
Epigenetics? - Eating for your epigenome - Epigenome NOE

This is all a nonsense that illustrates the desperation of your researchers to make what they want out of any evidence.

Further to that many articles and research papers now list Neanderthal as Homo Sapien Neanderthalis. How much more human can you be? They have ben found to have jewellry, art, bury the dead etc etc. When you look to pygmies, the variations in human skulls, and the huge variation in the human population, one can easily see that Neanderthal is as human as you and I. It was the idiocy of your researchers to have classified Neanderthal as anything else in the first place.

What is more amazing is you lot still carrying on about it, despite all the research. Talk about those that cannot undertand their own science, many of you are a classic example.

Your researchers reflections of what they see in DNA and what it means in the grand scheme of things is nothing more than the desperate seeking sticky tape to hold their theory together.

 

[painted wolf]

Nice number fudging.... :bow:

Neanderthals weren't always isolated from modern humans.... we lived side by side for tens of thousands of years.

Also, what does eating particular foods to reduce your risk of cancer have to do with anything?

wa:do

 

[meogi]

I don't know why I'm bothering, but I just have this burning desire.

Why do you label yourself as an old earth creationist? What, specifically, turns you toward that interpretation?

 

[newhope101]

Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, writes: Biology, in its proof of our physical similarity to other primates, underlines its own irrelevance."

You evolutionists call many simple variations by another name. Neanderthal is no more different to Homo sapiens sapiens than a Chinese is to a pygmy. If anything Neanderthal has the difference that any other two races have comparatively. Any attempt to make Neanderthal any more than what it is, being human, is hilarious.

Here is some light on the woffle made of the chimpanzee/human comparisons you lot like to rave on and on about. You’ll quote DNA when it suits you, or morphology when it suits you and you pick and choose if the two do not line up.

Science Literature - "Truth be told" about Chimp-Human DNA comparisons

Apparently, it is now OK to openly acknowledge that those who are involved in this research have never been comfortable that the 1% figure was an accurate summary of the scientific information. But more recent studies have made it impossible to sustain the old orthodoxy. They have raised "the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired." One zoologist is quoted as saying: "Now it's totally clear that it's more a hindrance for understanding than a help."

"Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of "humanness" versus "chimpness." [. . .] In the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE, Hahn and co-workers reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4%, concluding that "gene duplication and loss may have played a greater role than nucleotide substitution in the evolution of uniquely human phenotypes and certainly a greater role than has been widely appreciated."" The diversity of relevant factors that are mentioned suggest that the problem has been one of oversimplification leading researchers to draw unwarranted conclusions from limited data.

Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, writes: "DNA is beside the point. To concede so much to biology risks taking such privileges away from ourselves. [. . .] Chimps may resemble Homo sapiens in a tedious and literal sense, but in everything that makes us what we are H sapiens is unique indeed. Biology, in its proof of our physical similarity to other primates, underlines its own irrelevance."

It should be a "given" that humans are different from animals. If anyone struggles with this intellectually, then it may be appropriate to learn something from history. Let's be mindful that our knowledge of the relevant issues is limited.


Your own researchers dispute each other, each trying to favour their own slant and rubbishing each others work. They oversimplify and ultimately are only at the very start of understanding what they are looking at.

Ardi
In the other technical comment in Science, primatologist Esteban Sarmiento says he questions whether Ardi is in the human lineage because the fossil probably predates the divergence between humans and apes, which he estimates as 3 to 5 million years ago2.
But White and co-authors disagree. In their response4, the group says Sarmiento's "tortuous, nonparsimonius evolutionary pathways" are not supported by many of the fossil's characteristics.
　Was Ardi, the oldest hominid skeleton, a human or an ape? - Sci/Tech - DNA

Yes they all believe in evolution. However you have one researcher arguing for a split around 4mya, obviously convinced this is correct dating, then there is other research using insertion values and data that gives rise to an 8mya split. How convenient is that? It is rabbit out of a hat magic at best.

BBC Nature - Homo erectus videos, news and facts
THE DEBATE OVER HUMAN ORIGINS
http://chineseprehistory.com/athena_review.pdf
Homo habilis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have your very own evolutionary reseachers debating if indeed homo erectus or homo habilis has any place in human ancestry or are just dead ends as some debated Neanderthal to be. They were just non human primate APES. Always were and still are now.

Indeed humans have been humans all along even appearing in Isreal 400,000ya, neandethal were human and so was the common ancestor a human, You can give small differences in DNA and morphology a new name, but you cannot take the humanity out of a human and tranfer it to an ape like homo erectus or habilis. Both of which have debates as to whether or not they are human ancestors or not. They are just apes and Neanderthal was just a human despite or the balarney and species names and races.

 

[newhope101]

I don't know why I'm bothering, but I just have this burning desire.
You just love it
Why do you label yourself as an old earth creationist? What, specifically, turns you toward that interpretation?

Old earth as I am engraciating your silly biased modells that give rise to dating anything. Intrinsincally, I think that is all crap and the YECS may well have it right. Now you know!

 

[camanintx]

Your own researchers dispute each other, each trying to favour their own slant and rubbishing each others work. They oversimplify and ultimately are only at the very start of understanding what they are looking at.

I going to guess that you do not enjoy putting together jigsaw puzzles.

 

[David M]

No it is not wrong and a 2 year olds guess is about as robust as and of your researchers claims.

We know you use the guesses of 2 year olds.

It appears from all the woffle your researchers speak to as differences are nothing more than a nonsense.

No, the differences are real and in the genome.

For example one gene, RUNX2, plays a role in the shape of the skull, rib-cage, and shoulder joint—parts of the anatomy where Neanderthals differ from modern humans. Mutations to RUNX2 may have given Homo sapiens the anatomy that makes us unique among hominids.

So Neanderthals had a different version of a gene, a version that is not found in humans. Neandertals differ morphologically from humans in more than just the areas affected by RUNX2.

So here you have identified an gene that makes Neanderthal different humans. Have you ever thought that this could simply be a response to adaptations to cold or extremes.

No, there we have identified one of the genes that makes Neanderthals different from modern humans.

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).

When copy number variation is included, human to human genetic variation is estimated to be at least 0.5% (99.5% similarity).[8][9][10][11][12] Copy number variations are inherited but can also arise during development.[13][14][15][16][17]
Human genetic variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then there is this

The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.

You cannot compare percentages derived from different methods of counting things. That is fundamentally ignorant and dishonest.

The 99.5% compared to 99.9% is for SNPS.
The currently unknown percentage that can be compared to the 99.5% for human copy number variations will be lower than 99.5% for neanderthals.

Then if Neanderthal was exposed to pathogens or diseases that the rest of humanity were not exposed to due to isolation that would account for some difference's also, as could a very different diet.

What isolation, Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted in Europe for thousands of years.

Further to that many articles and research papers now list Neanderthal as Homo Sapien Neanderthalis. How much more human can you be?

You would be Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Tell me what makes you, or any other believe that Pakicetus is anything other than a dog.

Because it isn't.

The fossil resembles a coyote skeleton.

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 that the representations that are sketched up are a true representation.

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