Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

All other historical discussion, ancient or modern, falls here.
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3421
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by neilgodfrey » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:58 pm

John T wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:31 am
Unlike you, I actually try to read your links but of course once I realized you are just posting links of things you haven't even bothered to read and/or understand, I can't help but point out the irony.

The article has nothing to do with Denisovan DNA but regarding the southern African San people 8,100–2,500 years ago.
Still, we can learn from this study just the same.
Omg. Where on earth did I say the links were about Denisovans? The LINKS THEMSELVES SAID THEY WERE ABOUT AFRICA. NO-ONE HAD TO READ THE ARTICLES TO KNOW THAT! :facepalm:

I added the links to the articles because, well, I thought they were of a related interest. Anyone interested in the DNA evidence for human evolution and various species, I thought, like me, would also be interested in the articles I linked here.

For your benefit, however, I should have created a separate OP or introduced the links with a special message. Something like:
"Please notice from the names of the links you are about to click that the articles are about Africa and not Siberia. Please do not click if you are looking for information about Siberian evidence."
You obviously don't have any interest in the science itself but only in debunking science and anyone who has moved beyond your troglodyte superstitions.

It's a topic that I have long held a fascination for. I used to teach the details of humanoid evolution and knew most of the relevant discoveries. Since DNA testing and further discoveries the field has become for fascinating than ever. I hope very soon to visit Solo in Indonesia again to make up for my last visit when I missed the opportunity to see the various finds -- Java Man, Homo Floresiensis.

What is it you don't understand about the DNA analysis of these finds? You seem to be stuck in a mythical Genesis mind-warp.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by John T » Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:36 am

neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:58 pm


Omg. Where on earth did I say the links were about Denisovans? The LINKS THEMSELVES SAID THEY WERE ABOUT AFRICA. NO-ONE HAD TO READ THE ARTICLES TO KNOW THAT! :facepalm:

I added the links to the articles because, well, I thought they were of a related interest. Anyone interested in the DNA evidence for human evolution and various species, I thought, like me, would also be interested in the articles I linked here.
I used to teach the details of humanoid evolution and knew most of the relevant discoveries.

What is it you don't understand about the DNA analysis of these finds? You seem to be stuck in a mythical Genesis mind-warp.
Right, sure. However, in your denial of denial, you just unwittingly admitted you didn't even read it when you said no-one had to read the articles to know what they contained. Got it!

So, let's assume you actually read and understood the article. Being the expert, a teacher of evolution as you claim, please high-light the relevant data regarding DNA evidence for human evolution.

Thanks in advance.

P.S. Once again, thanks for the obligatory comment that one must be a creationist if you they don't believe in your out-dated version of evolution. I get that a lot from people who once took a college course on anthropology 30 years ago.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3421
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by neilgodfrey » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:38 am

John T wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:36 am

Unlike you, I actually try to read your links but of course once I realized you are just posting links of things you haven't even bothered to read and/or understand, I can't help but point out the irony.

The article has nothing to do with Denisovan DNA but regarding the southern African San people 8,100–2,500 years ago.
neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:58 pm


The LINKS THEMSELVES SAID THEY WERE ABOUT AFRICA. NO-ONE HAD TO READ THE ARTICLES TO KNOW THAT!

John T wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:36 am
Right, sure. However, in your denial of denial, you just unwittingly admitted you didn't even read it when you said no-one had to read the articles to know what they contained. Got it!

You're too smart for me, John T. None can resist your "logic" or unique ability to dis-read words and minds.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by John T » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:30 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:38 am
John T wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:36 am

Unlike you, I actually try to read your links but of course once I realized you are just posting links of things you haven't even bothered to read and/or understand, I can't help but point out the irony.

The article has nothing to do with Denisovan DNA but regarding the southern African San people 8,100–2,500 years ago.
neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:58 pm


The LINKS THEMSELVES SAID THEY WERE ABOUT AFRICA. NO-ONE HAD TO READ THE ARTICLES TO KNOW THAT!

John T wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:36 am
Right, sure. However, in your denial of denial, you just unwittingly admitted you didn't even read it when you said no-one had to read the articles to know what they contained. Got it!

You're too smart for me, John T. None can resist your "logic" or unique ability to dis-read words and minds.
Neil,
Thanks for admitting ( in your own little smart aleck way) that once again you got caught pretending to know something you don't.

Now, would you like to learn something about the errors of DNA and evolution or are you still too afraid to look under the bed?

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift


iskander
Posts: 2062
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by iskander » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:30 am

Essential cell biology3rd editionchapter 9 year 2010.PNG
Essential cell biology3rd editionchapter 9 year 2010.PNG (44.03 KiB) Viewed 8127 times

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by John T » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:09 am

Another year goes by and Denisovans still have not been confirmed to be a common ancestor of Homo sapiens or Neanderthals.

"The definition of a modern Homo sapiens remains subjective."...Johannes Krause, paleogeneticist.
Discover, January 2018, pg.11.

Translation: Although DNA evidence and fossil records are woefully inadequate, we still want to you to keep faith that Denisovans actually existed and mated with the missing link.

I thought religion was faith without evidence?
Yet, faith without evidence in evolution is considered scientific fact? :scratch:

Keep the faith, perhaps next year they will discover that elusive missing link.

John T
Last edited by John T on Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

iskander
Posts: 2062
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by iskander » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:08 am

On the sixth day man was created and God rested after this. Genesis 1 :26 Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind* in our image, according to our likeness;..

Man was formed from existing matter . Genesis 2:7 says , then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground.

Woman is made from a rib of man in Genesis 2:22, And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman.


God is revealing the creation of discrete living units in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 to be an evolutionary process from the ' dust of the ground' ; after an earlier evolutionary phase had introduced order into the existing cosmic chaos.1In the beginning when God created* the heavens and the earth, 2the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God* swept over the face of the waters.

Conclusion
Adam is one example of the existing ' missing link' because woman is the result of evolution operating on the already existing man.
Genesis says that eventually -- on the sixth day-- 'the formless earth' produced an intelligent animal -- a divine-like animal.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:20 am

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by lpetrich » Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:37 am

John T wrote:
Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:16 am
And there it is, the obligatory snide remark that anyone who questions the so-called science of evolution (e.g. Piltdown Man) is automatically a creationists.
John T, if you do not consider yourself a creationist, then you ought to give us your reasons for not being a creationist.

As to Piltdown Man, the story is more complicated that what creationists apparently believe, that mainstream paleoanthropologists universally endorsed it until it was shown to be a hoax.

The first of the Piltdown "finds" was "discovered" in 1912. But it was widely dismissed as an accidental composite of a human cranium and an ape jawbone. When the second one was discovered in 1915, it seemed like stronger evidence -- that kind of coincidence would not likely happen more than once. But in 1925, Raymond Dart discovered the skull of the Taung child, and it was the first of many other such finds. They had the opposite sort of features: brains not much larger than chimpanzee brains, but adapted for walking upright on two legs.

As the real finds continued, the Piltdown finds came to seem like an anomalous side branch, and with improved dating techniques, some people tried to date those finds. Along the way, they discovered that these "fossils" were composites assembled by some hoaxer(s). But the hoaxer(s) were never tracked down, and nobody ever confessed to creating these hoaxes.

Stephen Jay Gould: Piltdown Revisited, talkorigins.org FAQ file: Piltdown Man

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by John T » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:51 am

lpetrich wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:37 am
John T wrote:
Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:16 am
And there it is, the obligatory snide remark that anyone who questions the so-called science of evolution (e.g. Piltdown Man) is automatically a creationists.
John T, if you do not consider yourself a creationist, then you ought to give us your reasons for not being a creationist.

As to Piltdown Man, the story is more complicated that what creationists apparently believe, that mainstream paleoanthropologists universally endorsed it until it was shown to be a hoax.
Turns out the real creationist was Charles Dawson who created man (Piltdown man) in his own image using a hodgepodge of human and orangutan bones and some dental putty to hold the teeth together.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... a77b7c08b6

The creationists never give up. Their latest missing-link is a mythical hybrid from the interbreeding of Neanderthals and Denisovans some 470,000 years ago. This hypothetical missing-link is speculated on the same tooth and finger bone found in a cave in Siberia and backward projections of unverified DNA models. Sound familiar?

No doubt after real scientists take a close look at the DNA fingerprints and debunk yet another missing-link the creationists will just simply trot out a new candidate.

* This post was edited to reduce the number of unchallenged arguments.

Does that sufficiently explain why I am not a creationist?
So then, you ought to give us your reasons for being a creationist and not an evolutionist.

John T
Last edited by John T on Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Post Reply