Originally posted by Proper Knob
Rob???????? You've disappeared.

Have you a link to this Neanderthal story please?

Ill try and find it, but it will need to be later, I am snowed under with work! I know you have a memory that never forgets so I will not need to prompt you for a reminder 😛

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ill try and find it, but it will need to be later, I am snowed under with work! I know you have a memory that never forgets so I will not need to prompt you for a reminder 😛

No rush.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
No rush.

In 2004, newspapers reported on the dating flaws of Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, the former director of the Institute of Anthropology and Human Genetics for Biology at Goethe University in Frankfurt[1], whose carbon dating results had been used to date such specimens such as Hahnhofersand Man and Binschof-Speyer Woman (actually a man).[2][3] The Hahnofersand specimen was estimated by von Zieten to be around 36,000 years old. Independent Oxford research found the specimen to be less than 7,500 years of age -- long after evolution says the neanderthals went extinct.[4] (The age is still outside the estimates of most young-earth creationists, but a drastic reduction nonetheless.) According to the Herne Anthropological Museum in Germany, the remains still exuded an odor when the skull was cut open for further review.[5] Binschof-Speyer was estimated at 21,300, but independent research dated it at around 3,000 years of age.[2]
“ It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals. This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull. However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics... According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten. "Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."[6] ”

Von Zieten was also accused of trying to sell a collection of chimpanzee skulls to an American collector. He was suspended in 2004, and forced to retire in early 2005.[5] 'Scant news coverage' of the subject drew frustration from Answers In Genesis.[7]

http://creationwiki.org/Neanderthal

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
In 2004, newspapers reported on the dating flaws of Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, the former director of the Institute of Anthropology and Human Genetics for Biology at Goethe University in Frankfurt[1], whose carbon dating results had been used to date such specimens such as Hahnhofersand Man and Binschof-Speyer Woman (actually a man).[2][3] drew frustration from Answers In Genesis.[7]

http://creationwiki.org/Neanderthal

This is where we were up to in this thread, your quote -

as i stated before all materialists read from the same cook book and not having considered your so called, 'genetic evidence'.

How can you arrive at the conclusions you have when you stated that you haven't even considered the evidence?

That was my question to you to which you replied -

I considered some evidence in the interim.......

The first glaring hole here is, this isn't genetics Rob. An interesting story as it is, this doesn't constitute genetic evidence. Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten is/was an anthropologist, so i'm afraid you still haven't considered any genetic evidence.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This is where we were up to in this thread, your quote -

as i stated before all materialists read from the same cook book and not having considered your so called, 'genetic evidence'.

How can you arrive at the conclusions you have when you stated that you haven't even considered the evidence?

That was my question to you to which y ...[text shortened]... n anthropologist, so i'm afraid you still haven't considered any genetic evidence.

his methods were used to date artefacts PK, this should be obvious, after all, we are
trying to ascertain just how you derive your genetic dating, aren't we.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Independent Oxford research found the specimen to be less than 7,500 years of age -- long after evolution says the neanderthals went extinct.[4]
http://creationwiki.org/Neanderthal

If you had actually bothered to follow the reference you would have discovered that the Oxford team concluded that the bone in question was not that of a Neanderthal, so your quote does not in fact support your claims in the slightest.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
his methods were used to date artefacts PK, this should be obvious, after all, we are
trying to ascertain just how you derive your genetic dating, aren't we.

He was a shyster, apparently he couldn't even operate the dating equipment in his own lab. I don't see what one discredited anthropologist has to do with genetics? Your not making any sense.

we are trying to ascertain just how you derive your genetic dating, aren't we.

No. They are not my dates, i haven't done any genetic dating, i am not a geneticist. The dates we are talking about are derived by geneticists not me.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
He was a shyster, apparently he couldn't even operate the dating equipment in his own lab. I don't see what one discredited anthropologist has to do with genetics? Your not making any sense.

[b]we are trying to ascertain just how you derive your genetic dating, aren't we.

No. They are not my dates, i haven't done any genetic dating, i am not a geneticist. The dates we are talking about are derived by geneticists not me.[/b]

so for the last and final time, will you tell the forum what your understanding of how geneticist arrive at their dates.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so for the last and final time, will you tell the forum what your understanding of how geneticist arrive at their dates.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0040023

Natural selection promotes the survival of the fittest individuals within a species. Over many generations, this may result in the maintenance of ancestral traits (conservation through purifying selection), or the emergence of newly beneficial traits (adaptation through positive selection). At the genetic level, long-term purifying or positive selection can cause genes to evolve more slowly, or more rapidly, providing a way to identify these evolutionary forces. While some genes are subject to consistent purifying or positive selection in most species, other genes show unexpected levels of selection in a particular species or group of species—a pattern we refer to as the “selective signature” of the gene. In this work, we demonstrate that these patterns of natural selection can be mined for information about gene function and species ecology. In the future, this method could be applied to any set of related species with fully sequenced genomes to better understand the genetic basis of ecological divergence.

For example

In addition to the anecdotal cases described above, we examined more generally whether genes of common function tend to experience similar regimes of selection. Indeed, in our overall dataset, pairs of genes sharing the same COG (clusters of orthologous groups [27]) functional annotation have significantly more correlated selective signatures (the vector of &#957; across all species) than pairs with different functions (Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test, D = 0.12, p < 2.2e-16); conversely, genes with similar selective signatures are more likely to share a common function (Figure 3A). This indicates that selection can act coherently at the level of function, and across levels of organization larger than single genes.

Enjoy

Originally posted by finnegan
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0040023

Natural selection promotes the survival of the fittest individuals within a species. Over many generations, this may result in the maintenance of ancestral traits (conservation through purifying selection), or the emergence of newly beneficial traits (adaptation throug ...[text shortened]... e level of function, and across levels of organization larger than single genes.

Enjoy

it still fails to answer the question in terms that a layman can understand, why is that?

The first paragraph is just the usual bumf that some traits are kept and some are
dispensed with, so what? The second paragraph doesn't make much sense to be honest
and is the usual jargon enriched academic jive talk that is intended to impress the
uninitiated where in fact, once one understands the concepts behind the jargon, its
should be a simple affair,

so perhaps you can explain it in simple terms that I can understand?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it still fails to answer the question in terms that a layman can understand, why is that?

The first paragraph is just the usual bumf that some traits are kept and some are
dispensed with, so what? The second paragraph doesn't make much sense to be honest
and is the usual jargon enriched academic jive talk that is intended to impress the
u ...[text shortened]... ld be a simple affair,

so perhaps you can explain it in simple terms that I can understand?

Maybe you should follow your own advice, from a few days ago -

'do you own research and stop being soon fed'

Poetic justice.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Maybe you should follow your own advice, from a few days ago -

'do you own research and stop being soon fed'

Poetic justice.

ouch!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Maybe you should follow your own advice, from a few days ago -

'do you own research and stop being soon fed'

Poetic justice.

I get it, you materialists don't really know, do you, you have simply taken it upon trust. How vewy vewy vewy intewsting!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I get it, you materialists don't really know, do you, you have simply taken it upon trust. How vewy vewy vewy intewsting!

i think you are missing a rather important factor. scientists are not all friends, they do not work together towards a common goal. it would be impossible to get all the scientist in the world to collaborate in a huge cover-up. the opposite is true, scientists around the world are trying to make a name, they are constantly trying to find faults in each others work, to promote there own ideas. if there were major issues, we would see scientists at each others throats, similar to the way bible scholars argue over translations.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i think you are missing a rather important factor. scientists are not all friends, they do not work together towards a common goal. it would be impossible to get all the scientist in the world to collaborate in a huge cover-up. the opposite is true, scientists around the world are trying to make a name, they are constantly trying to find faults in each ...[text shortened]... ee scientists at each others throats, similar to the way bible scholars argue over translations.

oh naw, this does nothing to address the point, which is, how do scientists arrive at the dates for the so called 'DNA evidence', used by geneticists and so beloved by the anti biblical and lets be sure about this, my assertion is not that they are covering up, but they are reading from the same cook book.