Milken

We've established that they were African is possible. I'm saying peripherial speciation is possible. GOOD! They are human, the main reason I responded was I thought there was an undertone of this sub-human non-sense. We agree that wider noses is prevalent among people of African descent. It's not illogical' date=' the outside is intuitive of the inside(most of the time). The bones of Neanderthal man have a shape that suggests their size. He's from Standford and his stating his opinion. I believe it's not true. Why? Inhaling cold air is a health hazard, the body naturally tries to warm it up. A wider nose/nasal cavity is not a tight fitler, it's loose. A narrow nasal cavity better acts as a filter to block cold air. There are no good loose filters. Furthermore, Neanderthal man having wide nasal cavities is an assumption that it's an adaptation. If their ancestors were from Africa as you stated it's possible they still had wide nasal cavities. He's assuming it's an adaptation to cold weather because Neanderthals lived in a cold environment, it's kinda circular. The real question is, what are the nasal cavities of living African and Caucasion populations like, since the pigment can be identified. Read this: http://www.apva.org/resource/jjrc/vol1/do22.html Caucasian ancestry is based on a moderately narrow interorbital width, a sharply defined inferior nasal border, a narrow nasal cavity width, a v-shaped palate and lack of alveolar prognathism. Actually' date=' I wasn't serious but if I wanted to justify it and answer all your why questions I could, but I think it's pointless. If you looked into it, England had rickets problems with dark people living in the area. A dark skinned person can possible eat enough to survive just fine but living in those conditions not get any Vitamin D from the sun. The more melanin you have the more sun you need to absorb Vitamin D. I could pull out another issue of Nature that basically says were distinct and not related. Most the DNA studies say we're either not related' date=' or maybe a drop. There's also articles suggesting they're not related to modern caucasions at all. Good, we agree.

I agree it's not homology that's why earlier I was pointing out the difference to someone else, the gene is similar. Well' date=' I don't know if Jonathan Wells is incompetent or not. In other words, the gene isn't soley responsible for similarity like some Neo-Dist postualated. My point was that the squid is not a good example of the inverted part of the eye. The invertation causes a blind spot in animals with two eyes but they don't overlap and the inverted part allows more oxygen which is neccessary for the vertabrate eye. Squids aren't vertabrates and they only have one eye so the way the look(almost said design lol) makes sense. Thus' date=' it is a bad example. Stop, the similarity proves they're similar, not that they had a common ancestor. It proves the gene has always been around or is old though. and their DNA in general, however these particular genes do not account for the similarity of the eyes as they do not have a common ancestor with a common structure for the eye, the eyes evolved independently. In this case it is the fact that the DNA has similarities, but that these similarities do not cause homology that refutes your argument this is what I was getting at. It's not me that says similarity is in the genes. It's Neo-Darwist. They're arguement is refuted. It also seems evident similarity does not prove common descent because some physicaly similiarites count(cladists) and some genetic similiarities don't count. I need to regroup and flesh this outlol. As for the designer/materials comment. It's resonable for a designer to use the same thing to produce something different. Look at the materials of different kinds of anything, like buildings, a dog house to skyscraper. Anyway, not really the point of the thread. . . You've made some interesting points I think we may be using different definitions on some terms, similarity and homology.

You don't bother me at all. Blutness is sometimes neccessary. Compare here: Note the disease can make bones widen or it's just a large race of humans. We have pygmies in Africa, we have the Massai tribe where the average man is 6'4 or 6'5 and these groups haven't mixed with any other groups. In addition adults with rickets(osteomalacia) may not even have symptoms until they're older, and other diseases are prevalent with vitamin D deficiency. This is irrlevant since DNA evidence has shown Neanderthals are not ancestors of modern humans, but an extinct group of humans. The dates do not match up at all. They possibly died of the diseases brought about from vitamin D deficiency. The N-man sample is also very small. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030512/neanderthal.html I also contend they were too human to be sub human. They had our walk, larger than average brain and size. Cuivier (sp), one of the greatest of his time had a brain size of 1800 or something, and he's human, right. Neanderthals were thought to have brains a little smaller. From Lucy to Language page 99 says Neaderthals could sew with a picture of a needle that looks like one in use today. In conclusion, they made on-pitch flutes! Thank you peon for the challenge. . . . and I agree with you on women. . . .

The holocaust didn't happen? Yeah, that's some racist, ignorant, bigot, repugnant . . . . you know . . . fecies

Camels have water in there humps. The United States is fighting a War on Terroism. . . oops . . . wrong forum

Not the same type, basically the exact same type. Part of Neo-Darwinism suggests homology is due to the genes. Your statement seems to contradict this, help me out. The statement says the same gene not genes (maybe a mistake). This co-opting involves more than just tissue right. So' date=' the same gene co-opts different eye structures in different animals. How does that "prove" the eye evolved? If your statement is true, it proves that the a single gene does not have autonomy over a trait. Which suggests DNA has an overall blueprint already in mind, that makes the tissue form properly. It's difficult to detect the exact motives of a designer, I never met'em. In everyday life the same 'general' process is often used to make different things via different materials. Not a big deal to me. . .

The main thing wrong with evolution is the biased, compartmentalized, in the public everything is fact, in private we just don't know, and the teaching of our young intelects who think because it's in a textbook it's a fact. The theory of Evolution has been inherited by many as a fact without scrutinizing the theory to see any of its inadequecies.

How does it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, I'm confused? Homebox, norm of reaction, and another I can't remember are properties of genes that promote stasis. The eye statement wasn't applying specifically to mammalian eyes but to the overall concept. TO EVERYONE: The basic topic, the causes of similarity: "A more common explanation nowadays is that the homologies come from similar genes. In other words, the reason two features are homologous in two differen animals would be that they're programmed by similar genes in the embryo. But it turns out this doesn't work very well, either. We know some cases where you have similar featrues that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of caes whre we have similar genes that give rise to very different featrues. I'll give you an example: eyes. There's a gene that's similar in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies. If you look at a mouse eye and an octopus eye, there's a superficial similarity, which is odd because nobody thinks their common ancestor had an eye like that. What's more striking is if you look at a fruit fly's eye -- a compoud eye with multiple facets- it's totally different. Yet all three of these eyes depend on the same or very similar gene. In fact, it's so similar that you can put the mouse gene into a fruit fly that's missing that gene and you can get the fruit fly to develop its eyes as it normally would. The genes are that similar. " -Wells interview, (conept from his work Icons of Evolution) That's the best I could do for a souce, sorry. Conclusion: similar genes or developmental pathways can be said to be the mechanism for homology. Do I need to explain developmental pathways? What's frustrating is reading scientific journals/studies mostly have sequence analysis as DNA proof of evidence, as if to say, "Look at how similar these are, they obviously both came from the same single celled bacteria". It's an extrapolation of a good observation. The observation is good but the conclusion is just a hypothesis. The worst part is how intelligent(I assume) the scientist running the studies are. Is homology the only DNA "proof" for evolution?

How does it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, I'm confused? Homebox, norm of reaction, and another I can't remember are properties of genes that promote stasis. The eye statement wasn't applying specifically to mammalian eyes but to the overall concept. TO EVERYONE: The basic topic, the causes of similarity: "A more common explanation nowadays is that the homologies come from similar genes. In other words, the reason two features are homologous in two differen animals would be that they're programmed by similar genes in the embryo. But it turns out this doesn't work very well, either. We know some cases where you have similar featrues that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of caes whre we have similar genes that give rise to very different featrues. I'll give you an example: eyes. There's a gene that's similar in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies. If you look at a mouse eye and an octopus eye, there's a superficial similarity, which is odd because nobody thinks their common ancestor had an eye like that. What's more striking is if you look at a fruit fly's eye -- a compoud eye with multiple facets- it's totally different. Yet all three of these eyes depend on the same or very similar gene. In fact, it's so similar that you can put the mouse gene into a fruit fly that's missing that gene and you can get the fruit fly to develop its eyes as it normally would. The genes are that similar. " -Wells interview, (conept from his work Icons of Evolution) That's the best I could do for a souce, sorry. Conclusion: similar genes or developmental pathways can be said to be the mechanism for homology. Do I need to explain developmental pathways? What's frustrating is reading scientific journals/studies mostly have sequence analysis as DNA proof of evidence, as if to say, "Look at how similar these are, they obviously both came from the same single celled bacteria". It's an extrapolation of a good observation. The observation is good but the conclusion is just a hypothesis. The worst part is how intelligent(I assume) the scientist running the studies are. Is homology the only DNA "proof" for evolution?

Neanderthal, at least many of the bones found were Africans. People with wide noses have wide nasal cavities which is a common feature among Africans (as Peon mentioned but thought it wasn't an African feature). Also, many of the bones are curved in Neanderthal man, why, vitamin D deficiency causing rickets. The samething happened to Africans living in England. This is actually very contradictory to the discussion and also the overall assumption. I don't think anyone wants to get outside of the compartmentalized way of thinking.

If I can find the source, how would it affect your current thinking?

No, we'd never completely turn into an opposite shade of color. Just like other genes there's limits to it. Characteristics aren't simply inherited from the environment, it's genetic. Oddly enough(highly improbable), it's possible for two dark people to have a light child, but not the other way around. Remember, technically we're all different shades of melanin.

Oprah had a good show when she first came out. She admitted she had a drug problem (either coke or crack) on the show. Now a whole show may be about her shoe closet. I don't watch it, but a little while back Christopher Darden (from OJ trail) was on the show, pretty interesting. I give her respect for the Angel Network. PS Hopefully she's not reading this. She may shut the forum down with a bad recommendation like she did beef in Texas.

Please give me an extremely bias evolutionary source for the molecular clock. I haven't seen anything on it that makes me feel good about it as a "real scientific clock". The "clock" as of now disturbs me because so far it's admittedly not accurate and has to be cross referenced with the fossil record(right?). Could you explain how much drift you mean? It's not really intended to be an arguement, just an observation. It's not an argument for either side, personally, unless you prove "how". How does homology prove common descent? I agree it infers it just as much as it infers common design. On to the challenge (quite a good one) are you asking me to make a common design arguement to directly counter common descent? Is the evolution arguement for DNA more than homology?

Peak Oli Man, you're right, I accidentaly pressed send. A post boo boo if you will. You know what's odd, primates (chimps I believe) have dark skin on the sunexposed areas but under their skin it's fair. Hmmmmmmmm. . . .

The article basically shows how similiar our chromosome bandings and Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERV) are located in the exact same place of the genome, odds 1/6billion, fascinating how similar we're designed. = ) One issue I wonder about is how similarity can take such an important role when the exact same gene can produce different results. For example, in man and primates, the genes we have in common are the same ones that make us look different. It doesn't really seem to make a definitive statement for either side.

How is the case any stronger either way for similarity? One side says they're similiar because they have the same ancestor the other says they're similiar because they're built from similar parts.

How can two fossils show common descent? The other method is the molecular "clock", which I. . . nevermind.

Do the workings of DNA support Evolution? Explain