Neanderthal research (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 21:37 (5175 days ago) @ George Jelliss


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
> 
> "516 ka	Homo antecessor is the common genetic ancestor of humans and Neanderthal. At present estimate, humans have approximately 20,000...25,000 genes and share 99% of their DNA with the now extinct Neanderthal and 95-99% of their DNA with their closest living evolutionary relative, the chimpanzees. The human variant of the FOXP2 gene (linked to the control of speech) has been found to be identical in Neanderthal. It can therefore be deduced that Homo antecessor would also have had the human FOXP2 gene."-First, a note directly from the link you posted:->The classification of the great apes has been revised several times in the last few decades. Originally, Hominidae was the name given to humans and their extinct relatives, with the other great apes being placed in a separate family, the Pongidae. However, that definition makes Pongidae paraphyletic because at least one great ape species appears to be more closely related to humans than other great apes. Most taxonomists nowadays encourage monophyletic groups so this would require the use of Pongidae to be restricted to one of the great ape groups only. Thus many biologists consider Hominidae to include Pongidae as the subfamily Ponginae, or restrict the latter to the orangutans and their extinct relatives like Gigantopithecus. The taxonomy shown here follows the monophyletic groupings according to the two theories of human and great ape relationships.-
Micro-Evolution is a fact, we all know it. Macro-evolution is, in my humble opinion, at best, a delusion. I am not desperate to prove the theory wrong. It, much like the big bang theory, will prove itself wrong in time, because it, also like the big bang theory, is a case of trying to fit the data to the theory, instead of the other way round(as noted in the article above where they admittedly change the taxonomic classification of almost an entire family to fit the findings of one member of that family in order to support their claim). The evidence of evolution from one form, like the chimpanzee or great ape, into another form, like the ancestral humans, is speculative. In fact, after 15,000,000 years, chimps are still chimps, and apes are still apes, and humans, are still humans. No more proto-humans have evolved, not even a remotely similar evolutionary event has occurred. -Of course there are going to be shared genetic traits between the all species that share the same environment. We all have to breath the same chemical composition of air and the basic dietary needs of similar species are, well, similar. Similar predators that eat the same prey would logically develop somewhat similar methods for detecting and catching their quarry, though each would be limited to their own physiology. They would also be exposed to a similar range of micro-organisms, and likely have similar digestive systems to accommodate the food, and similar bacterial counts and possibly some of the same immunities. So it does not surprise me in the least that there are genetic or biological similarities. It doesn't even surprise me that there are extraordinarily genetically close species. That does not mean cats, rats, birds, algae, and humans all came from the same amoeba in the same cesspit. One argument makes logical, rational sense, the other does not. One argument has sound proof, the other does not. -As our genetic research continues, I predict that they will never find a confirmed link between humans and the ape line. (i.e. A genetic match that is close enough to be a viable breeder) They will never watch an single-celled organism spontaneously form, without prodding by men in lab coats, into an organized multi-cellular organism. The reason macro-evolution has not been witnessed is because it is not real. Darwinian evolution was a good theory, at the time it came about, because it fit the available data . However, it had the misfortune to become doctrine, and then, instead of admitting the errors in the theory, science has continuously tried to fit the data into the theory. -The reason I get so excited when I see symptoms of an old dogmatic theory crumbling as data arrives is because when the old theory finally dies, it makes room for more, new, enlightened theories to emerge from its shadow. Sorry if my excitement and enthusiasm disturb you, but I am honestly overjoyed to see some of the old placeholders getting questioned more.