Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? You've been warned about making unsupported assertions.

---

*not an actual doctor

Robert, It seems that you have a startling lack of ability to understand the limits to your knowledge about these matters.You also have been unable to refrain from making statements that not only do you not back up but for which there is not back up at all.The new bootcamp is set up to allow people that need a lot of help in how to conduct themselves. You are going to be restricted to posting there until you have demonstrated that you have learned something.To make it as easy as possible I suggest that you propose a topic of your liking. Then you can pick an area that you are most comfortable with.

Robert, if you care to open this topic in the Boot Camp, here is my opening salvo...

quote:

---

You say the neaderthals should have a particular sequence of DNA etc.if they are related to europeons.
And you say 6000 years is not long enough to have DNA drift etc.
Well thats just the point. That this did happen in both cases

---

Happened in both cases? Because the neandertals (plural as several have been sequenced) do not have sequences anything like europeans this makes them Germans? Hey, the Germans are a bit strange but neandertals they ain't. Their genetic diversity places them quite comfortably within the range of european genetic diversity.6,000 years is not enough and this is not only inferred from evolutionary studies but from biochemistry (a field you claim is actual science). The mutation rates for all polymerases have been measured. To generate the difference between neandertals and humans in 6,000 years is not biochemically feasible. It gets worse when you compare other organisms where even more distance separates them.

quote:

---

What I'm trying to say here is that either these neaderthals are indeed a different species of human and not from the Ark and so proving the Bible wrong on this point

---

Could you please point me to the verse in the bible which deals with morphological and genetic differences between neandertals and humans? It seems to be missing from my copy...mine just has the cud chewing rabbits.

quote:

---

OR
DNA is not reliable as it is now used in Toe to draw conclusions about ancestry as is always brought up to me.

---

You bring it up but you have yet to support it with any evidence. Your thesis is that since science is inconsistent with the bible, the science must be wrong. However, science can marshal evidence to support its conclusions. You have thus far only marshalled A) your lack of knowledge of science 2)and your personal incredulity. On what basis would anyone accept your evidence free view? Can you answer that?

Well, I've read a fair amount of literature, and if the two papers Mammuthus abstracted follow the standard procedures, the authors have also published a supplement containing all the original sequence data on which they base their conclusions. All you need to do is compare the sequences yourself and see if they are the same.If they're not, there's two possibilities: if the sequences differ only a bit, you might be looking at two haplotypes of the same species. However, if there are significant bits that are found in one specimen and not another, you've got evidence that they may not be the same species. And if you get a number of specimens of each type and the same differences appear each and every time, then your evidence that they're different species is much stronger.Finally, for your specific point that neanderthalensis may be simply an early version of some Indo-European, the easy way to make the determination would be to sequence known sapiens mtDNA from the region and compare it to your putative "ancient Germans". That's pretty much what they did in the second referenced article (although I won't claim any regional affiliation, the H. s. "type" specimen, including the ones used in the human genome project, is Indo-European). So since there's significant differences in mtDNA (not in the much more variable nuclear DNA, which was not studied AFAIK), with a fair number of specimens, it is a quite reasonable conclusion that the sequences represent different species. I'd be very interested to know your source for this. Given the various colonization/migration waves that wandered through northern Europe over the ages, determining what someone spoke a long time ago in that region is a bit problematic IMO. Especially since Basque appears to be unrelated to German OR Celt (do you mean Pict?).

Oh bloody heck. Happens every time. I go away for a day and the person I'm talking to either leaves, gets banned, or finds themselves restricted so they can't reply. Sigh.

Hey Q,
I'm trying to get the topic re-started in the Boot Camp. Now that salty J A Davison finally shut up, a productive debate may be possible with Robert there...at least until salty starts posting again

Good Lord. Are people ACTUALLY this stupid?

I understand your frustration but his is not a useful post.

Apologies. My Bad.