Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Holy Bible says there was only one civilization speaking one language
Yes, lets consider that. Are you telling us that the Chinese, and the Sumerians, had civilizations before the flood, got wiped out in a global flood, and then Noahs descendants managed to travel back to these locations and found new civilizations with similar cultures and languages as those that were there before?
Or are you saying that the flood was pri ...[text shortened]... ilizations? Wouldn't that contradict the Bible which mentions civilizations prior to the flood?
before the flood. The tower of Babel and the dividing of the languages
and the establishment of different civilizations came after the flood.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgain, how do you reconcile the fact that Neanderthal DNA, they died out around 27,000 years ago, has been found in the human genome?
You might as well ask why there is any human traces of DNA in the human gnome, so called Neanderthals are human not simian and this is about as tenuous as it gets for the materialist, no empiric evidence other than speculative attempts to utilise why a branch of humanity has passed on its genetic make-up, isn't that what the genes supposed to do? Pe ...[text shortened]... idence is, are we talking whole skeletal structures or a couple of teeth and a lower jaw bone ?
How did their DNA get into our genome if they were extinct before we were created?
5 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knob27,000 years on the basis of what empiric evidence? a couple of teeth dug up from a
Again, how do you reconcile the fact that Neanderthal DNA, they died out around 27,000 years ago, has been found in the human genome?
How did their DNA get into our genome if they were extinct before we were created?
quarry somewhere and a DNA sample taken, synthesised in a lab somewhere,
plueeeze! i would like to introduce exhibit a your honour, a piece of sampled DNA held
to have kept its integrity since 25,000 BC, please not the similarities to the human
gnome. Again you have failed to state how extensive your empiric evidence is. Whole
skeletons or some fragments of teeth and scull. If its not very extensive how do we
account for yet another anomaly?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not sure what you're saying here?! Are you saying there is no Neanderthal DNA in the human genome?
27,000 years on the basis of what empiric evidence? a couple of teeth dug up from a
quarry somewhere and a DNA sample taken, synthesised in a lab somewhere,
plueeeze! i would like to introduce exhibit a your honour, a piece of sampled DNA held
to have kept its integrity since 25,000 BC, please not the similarities to the human
gnome. Again y ...[text shortened]... ents of teeth and scull. If its not very extensive how do we
account for yet another anomaly?
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobA few key words and phrases spring to mind,
Have a read -
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18869-neanderthal-genome-reveals-interbreeding-with-humans.html
'This process isn't perfect', you dont say
'assuming it's the same size as the human genome', an assumption !
'Over time, though, strands of DNA break up', you dont say.
'Pääbo's team estimates', empiric science based on estimations/opinions or empiric
scientific data?
'It's impossible to know ', you dont say.
'Archaeological evidence suggests that humans and Neanderthals overlapped for
about 10,000 years in Europe and some fossils have even been interpreted as
Neanderthal-human hybrids, though not all palaeoanthropologists agree on this'.
and so it goes on and on, a statement not of empirical scientific fact, but of
postulation, estimation and opinion. Shameful!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo there is no Neanderthal DNA in the human genome then, that's your view?
A few key words and phrases spring to mind,
'This process isn't perfect', you dont say
'assuming it's the same size as the human genome', an assumption !
'Over time, though, strands of DNA break up', you dont say.
'Pääbo's team estimates', empiric science based on estimations/opinions or empiric
scientific data?
'It's impossible to ...[text shortened]... irical scientific fact, but of
postulation, estimation and opinion. Shameful!
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobthe clincher,
So there is no Neanderthal DNA in the human genome then, that's your view?
Can we trace any human traits back to Neanderthals?
Probably not.
Some researchers had hypothesised that some human genes, including one involved in
brain development, originated from interbreeding with Neanderthals, but Pääbo's team
found no evidence for this
hypothesised dear PK, what is this? empiric science or religion and magic?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes or no Rob. Neanderthal DNA in the human genome?
the clincher,
Can we trace any human traits back to Neanderthals?
Probably not.
Some researchers had hypothesised that some human genes, including one involved in
brain development, originated from interbreeding with Neanderthals, but Pääbo's team
found no evidence for this
hypothesised dear PK, what is this? empiric science or a religion?
Originally posted by Proper Knobif you read the article you will see that there occurred as little as 78 notable differences
Yes or no Rob. Neanderthal DNA in the human genome?
out of a possible ten million with human DNA, the jury is out on that one PK! Never
the less, in view of the lack of compelling evidence, opinion masquerading as scientific
dogma and lack of empirical scientific data, I would have to state that there is no way
of knowing.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat do you know about the scientific process? What do you know about sequencing a genome? Have you ever been into a scientific lab? You don't have a 'scooby-doo' with regards to the techniques involved in this research. You are a self confessed 'closed minded' 'ignorant' person, your words not mine, when it comes to any science that contradicts your religious views. Here you are glibly dismissing the work of 50+ global professional scientists because it contradicts what they told you at the Kingdom Hall. I would say it was unbelievable but it's the standard norm from you and it's what i've come to expect.
if you read the article you will see that there occurred as little as 78 notable differences
out of a possible ten million with human DNA, the jury is out on that one PK! Never
the less, in view of the lack of compelling evidence, opinion masquerading as scientific
dogma and lack of empirical scientific data, I would have to state that there is no way
of knowing.
So the question still remains as thus, the scientific view point is that there is Neanderthal DNA in the human genome. Do you accept that this is the case, yes or no?
Here's the actual paper that was published, maybe you could read through it and point out where in the process the researchers went wrong. I'm sure Dr Green, the author of the study, would be most delighted to here from you and would love to have his errors corrected, his email address is linked on the paper.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full#aff-1
Originally posted by Proper Knobso the best you have is an ad hominen, sweet! one more materialistic myth busted,
What do you know about the scientific process? What do you know about sequencing a genome? Have you ever been into a scientific lab? You don't have a 'scooby-doo' with regards to the techniques involved in this research. You are a self confessed 'closed minded' 'ignorant' person, your words not mine, when it comes to any science that contradicts your rel ...[text shortened]... is linked on the paper.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full#aff-1
neeeext!