First Love Child of Human, Neanderthal Found

[SlyPokerDog]

The skeletal remains of an individual living in northern Italy 40,000-30,000 years ago are believed to be that of a human/Neanderthal hybrid, according to a paper in PLoS ONE.

If further analysis proves the theory correct, the remains belonged to the first known such hybrid, providing direct evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred. Prior genetic research determined the DNA of people with European and Asian ancestry is 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal.

The present study focuses on the individual’s jaw, which was unearthed at a rock-shelter called Riparo di Mezzena in the Monti Lessini region of Italy. Both Neanderthals and modern humans inhabited Europe at the time.


http://news.discovery.com/human/evo...dence-of-interbreeding-with-humans-130327.htm

 

[SlyPokerDog]

BlazerWookiee has been trying to make a Homosheepian for years.

 

[magnifier661]

The skeletal remains of an individual living in northern Italy 40,000-30,000 years ago are believed to be that of a human/Neanderthal hybrid, according to a paper in PLoS ONE.

If further analysis proves the theory correct, the remains belonged to the first known such hybrid, providing direct evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred. Prior genetic research determined the DNA of people with European and Asian ancestry is 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal.

The present study focuses on the individual’s jaw, which was unearthed at a rock-shelter called Riparo di Mezzena in the Monti Lessini region of Italy. Both Neanderthals and modern humans inhabited Europe at the time.


http://news.discovery.com/human/evo...dence-of-interbreeding-with-humans-130327.htm

Monkey! How cute. Little guy is making a fire!

 

[BlazerWookee]

How do they know it was a love child, and not the product of an arranged marriage?

 

[julius]

And in what will be a surprise to no one, that child is the great great great great great great (well, a ton of greats) grandfather of Donald Trump.

 

[MadeFromDust]

That's a problem for the evolutionary theory then, because the evolutionary theory states that modern man has been around for about 200,000 years. If changes 30,000 years ago like that were occurring, we'd have a lot of transitional fossils, but we don't. There is also no trace of ancient literature or cultures going past 5,000 or so years. I do not believe that man has been on earth for more than 10,000 years. As for the age of the earth and the universe itself it's hard to know exactly IMO. I believe God can do weird things with time.

 

[speeds]

That's a problem for the evolutionary theory then, because the evolutionary theory states that modern man has been around for about 200,000 years. If changes 30,000 years ago like that were occurring, we'd have a lot of transitional fossils, but we don't. There is also no trace of ancient literature or cultures going past 5,000 or so years. I do not believe that man has been on earth for more than 10,000 years. As for the age of the earth and the universe itself it's hard to know exactly IMO. I believe God can do weird things with time.

Go on.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Another thing I'd like to point out, notice how evolutionary theory is a lot of artwork and little physical or even photographical evidence. Even of fossils! Why? Because the fossils that need to be in those places have to be found! Since they have not they draw sketches instead, take a look at wikipedia pages for example, or even citations from origins and Berkley pages. Why is this a problem? Because this crushes the backbone of the evolutionary theory the way the deniers of God and other spiritual influences want us to believe. They use evolution as an unambiguous term then enforce their particular theory on it, it's almost a form of deception. And it's a theory that is not observable or empirical in any way. I believe in evolution, evolution in terms of changes within kinds and species and I believe in natural selection. But not the evolution that is most commonly presented today, which is Darwinism.

 

[speeds]

Never mind.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Go on.

Show me some. I've seen people try to date artifacts to around 15 thousand years or so, but BC and AD is what we know about human history if we are going to be honest.

 

[speeds]

Ok.

 

[Denny Crane]

The funny thing is when creationists claim there's a whole in the fossil record that means God did something, scientists go look for the missing fossils and find them. Not drawings, but bones and other artifacts.

There really weren't very many humans 200,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

(Says there were between 1,500 and 16,000 total humans 200,000 years ago)

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ly-1000-humans-in-asia-europe-/1#.UVjzRKtAQh8

(Says there were as few as 1,000 humans in Asia and Europe combined, 30,000 years ago)

The point being, that finding these fossils are going to be tough because there were so few humans to start with. They'd have to die and their bodies be in a place where they would be preserved instead of rotting away to nothingness.

 

[MadeFromDust]

The funny thing is when creationists claim there's a whole in the fossil record that means God did something, scientists go look for the missing fossils and find them.

There really weren't very many humans 200,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

(Says there were between 1,500 and 16,000 total humans 200,000 years ago)

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ly-1000-humans-in-asia-europe-/1#.UVjzRKtAQh8

(Says there were as few as 1,000 humans in Asia and Europe combined, 30,000 years ago)

Denny, what museum can I go to where I can observe the millions of transitional fossils displayed publicly? We have all kinds of 65+ miiiillion year old dinosaur bones, so don't give me the fossilization copout

Also I'd get mocked if I used wikipedia as my reference.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Did you know that red blood cells and soft tissue were found in the bones of a "beautifully preserved" T-Rex dug up in the 90's and was originally dated 68 million years old?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Did you know that red blood cells and soft tissue were found in the bones of a "beautifully preserved" T-Rex dug up in the 90's and was originally dated 68 million years old?

And even stranger yet it tasted just like chicken.

 

[santeesioux]

Ok.

You're doing the lord's work.

 

[speeds]

Show me some. I've seen people try to date artifacts to around 15 thousand years or so, but BC and AD is what we know about human history if we are going to be honest.

I'll start by asking you if you believe in the veracity of radiocarbon dating. Otherwise, we don't really need to go any further.

 

[MadeFromDust]

I'll start by asking you if you believe in the veracity of radiocarbon dating. Otherwise, we don't really need to go any further.

Radiocarbon dating? Well I know that carbon dating tests dead organisms and has a halflife of about 5,730 years, Carbon-14 decays by the emission of an electron of energy 0.016 MeV. This changes the atomic number of the nucleus to 7, producing a nucleus of nitrogen-14. At equilibrium with the atmosphere, a gram of carbon shows an activity of about 15 decays per minute. It is impossible to date ancient fossils with carbon dating.

 

[speeds]

Not talking about fossils right now. More concerned with your assertion that there is no evidence for human existence beyond 10,000 years ago.

So are you yes or no on carbon dating?

 

[MadeFromDust]

Not talking about fossils right now. More concerned with your assertion that there is no evidence for human existence beyond 10,000 years ago.

So are you yes or no on carbon dating?

Carbon dating only tests dead animals or people, it doesn't test rocks or other strata. What I just told you is that anything past about 50,000 years would not be able to be tested by carbon dating because the carbon-14 would have decayed by then. This is basic knowledge. If you want to try radiometric dating then that's another story.

 

[speeds]

I don't have to go that far back.

 

[MadeFromDust]

I don't have to go that far back.

Then where are your fossils? Evolutionary theory states man has been in modern form for about 200,000 years.

 

[speeds]

I'm not going to argue the whole shebang with you. I'm just trying to set up the framework for a discussion regarding your assertion that there is no evidence for humans past 10,000 years ago. I haven't even brought up what evidence I might like to use. I just want to know that we're on the same page when it comes to the way things are dated so that we don't get sidetracked.

 

[MadeFromDust]

I'm not going to argue the whole shebang with you. I'm just trying to set up the framework for a discussion regarding your assertion that there is no evidence for humans past 10,000 years ago. I haven't even brought up what evidence I might like to use. I just want to know that we're on the same page when it comes to the way things are dated so that we don't get sidetracked.

Like I said in the other thread, I'm signing off for the night but I'll probably be back tomorrow. It seems like you don't have a good understanding of carbon dating, how it works and its limitations. Again I'll be happy to discuss this later.

 

[ABM]

The skeletal remains of an individual living in northern Italy 40,000-30,000 years ago are believed to be that of a human/Neanderthal hybrid, according to a paper in PLoS ONE.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evo...dence-of-interbreeding-with-humans-130327.htm

And he cleans up well, to boot!

 

[speeds]

Ok well when you come back tomorrow you can tell me if you think radiocarbon dating is legit and keep in mind we're talking about things younger than 50,000 years old.

 

[ABM]

Like I said in the other thread, I'm signing off for the night but I'll probably be back tomorrow. It seems like you don't have a good understanding of carbon dating, how it works and its limitations. Again I'll be happy to discuss this later.

This is gonna be fun. I like your style.

 

[tlongII]

Every fossil that's ever been found is a transitional fossil. It's really not too difficult to understand.

 

[Further]

Can I make a guess about the missing link?

 

[Eastoff]

Radiocarbon dating? Well I know that carbon dating tests dead organisms and has a halflife of about 5,730 years, Carbon-14 decays by the emission of an electron of energy 0.016 MeV. This changes the atomic number of the nucleus to 7, producing a nucleus of nitrogen-14. At equilibrium with the atmosphere, a gram of carbon shows an activity of about 15 decays per minute. It is impossible to date ancient fossils with carbon dating.

ERR! WRONG, SORRY! Try again. The emission of an electron CANNOT change the atomic number. It is a proton decaying into a neutron and neutrino that can only change the atomic number, or simply the emission of a proton.