Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aquatic Ape theory?
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 46 of 138 (103539)
04-28-2004 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by redwolf
04-23-2004 2:27 PM


Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
redwolf writes:
Neanderthal DNA has been described as "halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee" ...
Off topic warning. I just want to point out the redwolf has been corrected on this several times before. The above erroneous description was taken from an Indian newspaper, which was citing scientific work that said no such thing. Details on google in this thread, and also showing the actual scientific data that the expressindia reporter misrepresented.
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-28-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 2:27 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2004 10:37 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 48 by redwolf, posted 04-30-2004 11:26 PM Sylas has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 138 (103550)
04-28-2004 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Sylas
04-28-2004 9:10 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
and he repeated it on Racial Evolution 101 post #60:
Again, despite looking much like us, neanderthals were vastly different genetically. Their DNA has been described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", cleanly eliminating them as a plausible ancestor for modern man.
Mind you that whole post is a verbatim copy from ted holden's website at:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/evorants/neander_Matternes.html
So Either redwolf is Ted Holden or he is plagarizing ted's 'work' or ignorant in the procedure of properly citing other people.
Certainly Ted earns the epithet of creatortionista in my books as he has posted false information on his website that he should know is false by your communication with him referenced above. This makes him an "Example of Dishonesty" too.
Maybe Neanders weren't aquatic ... ?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Sylas, posted 04-28-2004 9:10 PM Sylas has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 48 of 138 (104457)
04-30-2004 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Sylas
04-28-2004 9:10 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
Neanderthal DNA has been described as "halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee" ...
The above erroneous description was taken from an Indian newspaper, which was citing scientific work that said no such thing. Details on google in this thread, and also showing the actual scientific data that the expressindia reporter misrepresented.
A number of different scientists have described neanderthal dna as being about halfway between ours and that of a chimp. You could pretty much do your own google search and take your pick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Sylas, posted 04-28-2004 9:10 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2004 11:56 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 50 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 7:02 AM redwolf has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 138 (104463)
04-30-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by redwolf
04-30-2004 11:26 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
You could pretty much do your own google search and take your pick.
I had a couple of guesses at what to search for but didn't find them. Could you supply the first 2 or 3? Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by redwolf, posted 04-30-2004 11:26 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 50 of 138 (104503)
05-01-2004 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by redwolf
04-30-2004 11:26 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
redwolf writes:
A number of different scientists have described neanderthal dna as being about halfway between ours and that of a chimp. You could pretty much do your own google search and take your pick.
Wrong again. I did a search on "halfway Neanderthal chimpanzee DNA"; and what you find is...
  • Anjali Mody, the reporter who made an honest mistake.
  • Ted Holden, a well known Usenet crank. One page shows Ted repeating the claim that you can find quotes of scientists saying Neanderthals are halfway between us and chimpanzees. No examples, of course; just characteristic bluster.
  • The international bigfoot society.
  • Tim Roufs, who also apparently misunderstands the Cell paper. Roufs comes close, except that he is a sociologist and cultural anthropologist in the liberal arts; not in science.
  • redwolf, because Google also finds these pages in EvC.
I stopped looking after 20 or so pages. It gets boring. If I had found an example, I would have given it. Perhaps you could find a scientist saying something like this, if they were not directly involved in the research... because even if you did find someone saying that, they would still be wrong. The data in question shows plainly that Neanderthals are just as far from being chimpanzees as we are. If anything, they were very slightly further from chimpanzees than we are. The claim that Neanderthal is halfway between human and chimpanzee is analogous to saying Seattle is halfway between Los Angeles and New York. It's wrong.
I can understand that someone who doesn't know much about evolution or genetics might make the error. But continuing to insist on expressing the matter so incorrectly, on the imagined authority of unknown scientists, and in direct conflict with the actual data which shows the error, is rather amusing and typical.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by redwolf, posted 04-30-2004 11:26 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 8:14 PM Sylas has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 51 of 138 (104629)
05-01-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Sylas
05-01-2004 7:02 AM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
Haven't figured out how to use google yet you say?
I mean, it isn't hard. Enter the search terms 'neanderthal' 'dna' and 'chimpanzee'... Some of what turns up:
http://hackvan.com/...news/SCIENCE--neanderthal-DNA-analyzed

"We know if anything is a Neanderthal, this is a Neanderthal," Stringer
added. "One couldn't have hoped for a better specimen."
Comparisons with the DNA of modern humans and of apes showed the
Neanderthal was about halfway between a modern human and a chimpanzee.
Stringer said the evidence firmly supported the so-called "Out of Africa" theory of human origins. He and others who subscribe to this theory say modern humans evolved in Africa and spread across the world about 100,000 years ago.
http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/article.php

The team compared 378 base pairs of the mitochondrial (mDNA- extracted 1,500 DNA molecules)
of the Neandertal with that of modern humans. The mitochondria are the energy producing
engines of the body, and are passed from female to female with no differences except, as with a clock,
random genetic changes. They found an average of 27 differences between the two, which is more
than the normal variation of 8 between modern humans (Nordic, pygmy, Oriental, Aborigine, etc.)
The finding indicates that Neanderthal people were a genetically different species. Comparisons
between modern humans and apes indicated that Neanderthal was about halfway between a modern
human and a chimpanzee.
Prehistoric Cultures -- University of Minnesota Duluth

Timeline:
* 1997 isolated Neandertal DNA
o Neandertals are almost exactly halfway between the chimpanzee and modern humans
o diverged ca. 600,000 ybp
News | Penn State University

University Park, Pa. -- A team of U.S. and German researchers has extracted mitochondrial DNA from Neandertal bone showing that the Neandertal DNA sequence falls outside the normal variation of modern humans.
When the researchers looked at the Neandertal sequence with respect to 994 human mitochondrial DNA lineages including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, Australians and Pacific Islanders, they found the number of base pair differences between the Neandertal sequence and these groups was 27 or 28 for all groups. [i.e. halfway to being a chimpanzee]
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

The comparison to chimpanzees with modern humans is 55.0 3.0, compared to the average between humans and Neanderthals of 25.6 2.2. these results indicate a divergence od the human and Neanderthal lineages long before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of humans.
http://www.findarticles.com/..._86/70362289/p2/article.jhtml

Following the discovery of the Neanderthal DNA, the German scientists compared it to the DNA of humans living today. (No early modern human DNA has ever been uncovered.) A clear difference was apparent between the two types of DNA. So marked was that difference that the Germans concluded that Neanderthals were an entirely separate species of human. A species is a group of organisms that have common characteristics and cannot breed with another species. Because of the distinct difference in DNA, any attempts at interbreeding by Neanderthals and the early modern humans would have failed to yield offspring, the scientists reasoned.
Just a moment...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 7:02 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2004 9:17 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 53 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 9:54 PM redwolf has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 52 of 138 (104639)
05-01-2004 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by redwolf
05-01-2004 8:14 PM


and Sylas was right.
Site 1:
(http://hackvan.com/...news/SCIENCE--neanderthal-DNA-analyzed)
This is a reuters news report. The halfway remark is not a quote of a scientist. It is exactly the kind of report that Sylas said was possible.
Site 2:
(the bigfoot society!!??)
This appears to be another report on the same thing. It also does not quote a scientist.
Site 3:
(Prehistoric Cultures -- University of Minnesota Duluth)
Not pointing to the details so one can't tell.
Site 4:
(News | Penn State University)
The "i.e. halfway to being a chimpanzee" is yours not the site you quoted. Sylas has pointed out how this error can be made.
Site 5:
(http://www.findarticles.com/..._86/70362289/p2/article.jhtml)
No comment here on the "half way".
Site 6:
(Just a moment... )
Appears to be another news report. I don't see any halfway comment.
So that's the bunch of them. They aren't at all the evidence that was asked for. There isn't any primary literature there and no direct quote by any of the researchres. They are simply repeating exactly the kind of error made in the intial reporting.
You seem to be able to use Google but you didn't answer the point Sylas was making. Not at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 8:14 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 53 of 138 (104647)
05-01-2004 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by redwolf
05-01-2004 8:14 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
Much better, redwolf. This is how to try and support your assertions. Unfortunately, none of your examples actually support your claim. There is one other journalist; and then either sources I cited last time from my Google source, or else papers which do not make the error.
Your examples are, in order:
  1. Maggie Fox; correspondent. The incorrect phrase is not quoted from scientists, but is her own text.
  2. International bigfoot society, which I mentioned previously as also making the error. Not scientists.
  3. Tim Roufs, whom I mentioned previously as also making the error. Sociologist and cultural anthropologist.
  4. Your fourth extract is correct, and does not make the stated error. The editorial insertion added by you is flatly wrong, and not an implication of the results.
  5. Your fifth extract is correct, and does not make the stated error. It quotes numbers for the human-neandertal distance, and numbers for the human-chimpanzee difference. This says nothing whatsoever about which, if any, is "in between" the others.
  6. Your sixth extract says nothing remotely similar to the quoted error. The link provided gave me a 404 error, due to a problem in the way UBBforums tries to construct hyperlinks. The following link may work better: http://www.findarticles.com/..._86/70362289/p2/article.jhtml
  7. The seventh extract does not make the stated error.
Bear in mind the claim. The incorrect claim is the one which appears in Message 48 and others of redwolf's and Holden's writing.
A number of different scientists have described neanderthal dna as being about halfway between ours and that of a chimp.
Maggie Fox is the only new example you give of someone who gives this erroneous description. Indeed, it is possible that Anjali Mody was repeating her error. Comparing the Maggie Fox's report, Reuters with Anjali Mody's report contains textual clues that Mody was actually using Fox's report. There are several cases of shared text, including the erroneous phrase. Fox may well be the original source of the error, unless an earlier source can be found.
Redwolf uses this data to argue that Neandertals were not our ancestors. That is also the view of the authors of the study; and I agree as well. There do remain a small number of scientists who still dispute the strength of this inference; as in your sixth extract, and I consider this unlikely, but not completely settled.
Your fourth extract reveals plainly what is going on here.
You wrote, as a quote from the PSU press release
When the researchers looked at the Neandertal sequence with respect to 994 human mitochondrial DNA lineages including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, Australians and Pacific Islanders, they found the number of base pair differences between the Neandertal sequence and these groups was 27 or 28 for all groups. [i.e. halfway to being a chimpanzee]
The press release states the matter correctly, and makes no implication of any association to a chimpanzee. All the differences cited are examples of purely human diversity, and none of them is suggestive of "halfway to being a chimpanzee". The text in cyan is redwolf's editorial insertion, not a quote from any scientist. Scientists are most unlikely to make that mistake. It is a bit surprising that Maggie Fox made this simple error; but such mistakes in science journalism are ubiquitous, and easily resolved by looking at the actual research rather than second hand journalist reports.
That is what we should do; not go trolling through the net looking to see if any actual scientist repeats the phrase. Look at the data, and you can see that the phrase is wrong, whoever says it.
I've started a new thread which looks at the actual research, and illustrates what the research actually indicates. Added in edit: for discussion of the research itself, go to Message 1.
Cheers — Sylas
PS. Hi NosyNed I saw your reply come on-line as I was writing this one, but decided to post anyway.
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 8:14 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2004 10:17 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 55 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 10:19 PM Sylas has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 54 of 138 (104657)
05-01-2004 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Sylas
05-01-2004 9:54 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
I'm glad you did post Sylas. I thought I could save you some time but your post is much better than mine (as usual).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 9:54 PM Sylas has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 55 of 138 (104658)
05-01-2004 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Sylas
05-01-2004 9:54 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
We might really not have anything more than a question of semantics here. I'd interpret the dna findings as meaning that a neanderthal was about halfway from a chimp to us and apparently others do as well and I have seen that comparison in a number of places from a number of authors at one point or another. Some neanderthal skulls show jaws which are attached way back from where ours are which is apelike and the rounded (as opposed to our long) body trunks are also apelike. I've seen claims that neanderthal teeth are apelike and their shorter maturation rate (studies derived from teeth) is also a major difference from us.
Other than that, a chimpanzee is not really a total loss from the point of view of functionality. They can communicate easily enough using deaf signing conventions, they can hunt, engage in gangfights and wars, get drunk, and about the only major sort of thing they can't do is talk and that's apparently from lack of control over breathing as Elaine Morgan describes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 9:54 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 10:47 PM redwolf has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 56 of 138 (104663)
05-01-2004 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by redwolf
05-01-2004 10:19 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
redwolf writes:
I'd interpret the dna findings as meaning that a neanderthal was about halfway from a chimp to us and apparently others do as well and I have seen that comparison in a number of places from a number of authors at one point or another.
Fixing this would not make a big difference to the rest of your discussion; and indeed I mostly agree with the rest of your post.
The problem with the interpretation given above is that it tends to suggest the old failed idea of a kind of ladder of nature, in which other living forms are all ranked in a sequence with humans at the top.
The error in describing Neandertals as halfway to chimpanzee is exactly the same error as describing Negros as a fifth of the way to chimpanzee. It's incorrect, because in fact no human "race" -- Neadertals included -- is any closer to chimpanzees than any other "race". I'd really recommend that you fix the web page to phrase the matter more accurately.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 10:19 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 11:26 PM Sylas has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 57 of 138 (104671)
05-01-2004 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Sylas
05-01-2004 10:47 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
>The error in describing Neandertals as halfway to chimpanzee is exactly the same error as describing Negros as a fifth of the way to chimpanzee.
The two situations are totally different. Neanderthals clearly were a totally different species, sufficiently so to preclude interbreeding altogether.
Modern humans are so genetically close to eachother that it suggests a very recent catastrophic event which reduced the human population to some very small number, and I'd figure that to be prior to the flood since I do not believe that east Asians are descended from Noah.
There is said to be less variation in the entire human race (now) than in a typical tribe of 60 African monkeys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 10:47 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 11:59 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 58 of 138 (104679)
05-01-2004 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by redwolf
05-01-2004 11:26 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
I'll respond to this in the other thread. Sorry about taking this one so far of topic. Thanks redwolf... agree with much of what you say on human homogeneity; although my original comment remains completely accurate. I'll explain with more data in the other thread in a day or so.
Added in edit... see Message 6. This presents comparisons with diversity between subspecies of chimpanzee, from the same Krings et al research group that was indirectly used in Ted's Neandertal pages. This data suggests that Neandertals were most likely a plainly identifiable subspecies, but closer to modern humans than subspecies of common chimp are to each other.
[This message has been edited Sylas, 05-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 11:26 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 59 of 138 (191450)
03-14-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by redwolf
04-15-2004 12:13 PM


evcthread
redwolf had
quote:
One could as easily start off assuming that humans originally were created with the adaptations she describes.
What if Homo floresiensis(see evc thread above)
swam the Bay of Bengal from the reclamied mangrove aquatic shore around Eithiopia's past but did NOT cross Wallace's line as perhaps "erectUs" did? It would no longer be a case of a lizard's trait split between Korea and Japan through the Himilayaes be the speed of crab swimming a priori but mans not finding a geodesic is good enough for an adaptation not that antiadpatationism is a zealous thinking(as Gould Had it).That would sure make c/e talk more interesting.
I can see now how to do more with Croizat without biasing the time line either way to end with. I thought of this on reading in Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea",especially about an 83 paper. Although I intend on disagreeing with Dennent on just about everything to begin with, DD's taking Gould and Lewontin to task on Drs and Mrs Pangloss I heartly laugh along with without being as candid.
additionally
1.61803 @mess 31
had in a link
AAT/H Leaflet List Annotated
"forces an adaptation to"... perhaps it so forced the crossing of Wallaces line into Australia and the Americas?
perhaps the "toliet" was only the direction the water spins in it??
SO WE could seperate GOING into water and COMING out of it by traits in the fossils??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by redwolf, posted 04-15-2004 12:13 PM redwolf has not replied

  
artturi
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 138 (215789)
06-10-2005 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Sylas
04-07-2004 5:18 AM


This little problem.
The way I see it:
Elaine morgan is not a scientist, she has not 'proven' anything.
But did Darwin prove anything? He formulated a theory, other people 'proved' it.
I am afraid that the generation that grew up hearing of Morgan's theories (or hardi's) grow up to be anthropologists who can Prove it.
What I do not like about Jim Moore's page is that he does not much practise what he preaches.
What he does is so easy, let me demonstrate:
My open letter to Jim Moore:
http://www.geocities.com/aftofmagic/jimmoorecritique.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Sylas, posted 04-07-2004 5:18 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024