Todd Wood: Burial site of Neanderthal infant found

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 4, 2016

Human evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Todd Wood at his blog:

News articles last week in El País and New Scientist report the discovery of a Neandertal infant burial in an ancient cave about 58 miles north of Madrid, Spain. …

The abstract describes the discovery of Des-Cubierta cave in 2009 and the subsequent excavation of Late Pleistocene remains of a Neandertal child.

From Richard Gray at New Scientist

The blackened hearths surround a spot where the jaw and six teeth of a Neanderthal toddler were found in the stony sediment. Puzzlingly, within each of these hearths was the horn or antler of a herbivore, apparently carefully placed there. In total, there were 30 horns from aurochs and bison as well as red deer antlers, and a rhino skull nearby.

Archaeologists believe the fires may have been lit as some sort of funeral ritual around where the toddler, known as the Lozoya Child, was placed around 38,000 to 42,000 years ago. More.

Wood notes

The authors of the study, Baquedano et al., suggest in their abstract that the site is probably some kind of grave with the small hearths and horns representing ritual funerary activity. If true, this would be the clearest evidence to date of symbolic behavior of Neandertals in caring for their dead. It looks like the Neandertal parents placed some hunting trophies in with their dead child and lit some small ritual fires. More.

The paper is not yet available.

See also: Study: Neanderthals made jewelry

and

Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

bornagain77 You claim ID has rigid demarcation criteria to test against. Great. But I'm still trying to get you to state what your argument actually is. You claim there's something in the world that could not possibly come into existence without an intelligent designer. You call that thing "functional coded information". Well, ok, but there of plenty of things I would call functional coded information (e.g. the electromagnetic patterns caused by eclipsing binary stars) that do not appear to require an intelligent designer. So your term "functional coded information" is hopelessly vague. Accordingly, I'm asking you to define it for me. Just don't tell me its something that "only comes into existence from an intelligent designer" because that tells me nothing other than what you've already said (arguing in a circle, see?). Do you get it now?CLAVDIVS_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Request sent.bornagain77_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 The only person I have accused of arguing in a circle is Perry Marshall. Please read for comprehension.CLAVDIVS_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Au contraire, the existence of functional coded information in life, and the inference to a mind needed to create that functional coded information, is certainly not 'arguing in a circle' as you are falsely claiming but is arguing from 'presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question'. Which just so happens to be the same exact method of science that Darwin himself used.
Stephen Meyer: Charles Darwin's Methods, Different Conclusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqq6JP5gE0E
If you want to argue that Darwin was 'arguing in a circle' in his theory then that is perfectly fine by me since, besides cutting your feet off to spite your legs, I regard his work as a non-falsifiable psuedoscience which, unlike ID, has no rigid demarcation criteria to test against. Supplemental note: Conservation of Information on steroids:
The Famine of Forte: Few Search Problems Greatly Favor Your Algorithm - George D. Montanez - 28 Sep 2016 No Free Lunch theorems show that the average performance across any closed-under-permutation set of problems is fixed for all algorithms, under appropriate conditions. Extending these results, we demonstrate that the proportion of favorable problems is itself strictly bounded, such that no single algorithm can perform well over a large fraction of possible problems. Our results explain why we must either continue to develop new learning methods year after year or move towards highly parameterized models that are both flexible and sensitive to their hyperparameters. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.08913v1.pdf
Seeing as you have now falsely accused George Ellis and others of 'arguing in a circle' then I will forward this thread to admin. and see if he agrees with me that you are trolling.bornagain77_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

bornagain77
Perry Marshall: “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer."
This is a classic case of arguing in a circle. According to this, information requires "agreed upon" symbols. This obviously assumes the existence of intelligent designers who are doing the agreeing. It is therefore fatuous to argue "information cannot come into existence without a designer". Of course it can't, if we only count something as "information" if it involves intelligent designers in the first place. Marshall's quote is equivalent to saying "something that cannot come into existence without a designer is something that cannot come into existence without a designer." D'uh. That's a meaningless and useless tautology. This is what comes from arguing in a circle. Do you see the problem here? So what's your definition of functional coded information? PS:
If you want to accuse them of ‘arguing in a circle’ when they claim information comes only from a mind, then I will write you off as a troll and request the admin to stop you from pestering me.
If they're arguing in a circle then I am not hesitant or ashamed about pointing it out. It's a fallacy and they should be grateful for the opportunity to correct their fallacious argument. Hiding behind a moderator's skirts won't change a fallacious argument into a sound one; it will just signal to the world the weakness of your position and your inability to defend it.CLAVDIVS_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

"I grant that information is its own physical entity." "you need to have a definition of “functional coded information”,,, “functional coded information is equal to mass in kg” or “Gibbs entropy”. This definition is what I’m asking for." And exactly how did you come to the conclusion that information is its own physical entity if it was not for the fact that it was measured as a 'bit' that had 'thermodynamic content'? You need to maintain consistency in your thinking. As to coded information in particular, here are a few of my notes: Perry Marshall, in reference to the 3 million dollar prize, defined it simply as such:
“Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer."
also of note
What is information? - Marcello Barbieri - 8 February 2016 Excerpt: the supporters of the chemical paradigm have argued that the concept of information is only a linguistic metaphor, a word that summarizes the result of countless underlying chemical reactions. The supporters of the information paradigm insist that information is a real and fundamental component of the living world, but have not been able to prove this point. As a result, the chemical view has not been abandoned and the two paradigms both coexist today. Here, it is shown that a solution to the ontological problem of information does exist. It comes from the idea that life is artefact-making, that genes and proteins are molecular artefacts manufactured by molecular machines and that artefacts necessarily require sequences and coding rules in addition to the quantities of physics and chemistry. More precisely, it is shown that the production of artefacts requires new observables that are referred to as nominable entities because they can be described only by naming their components in their natural order. From an ontological point of view, in conclusion, information is a nominable entity, a fundamental but not-computable observable. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/374/2063/20150060
also of note:
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: page 5: A: Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics, for example state vector preparation, where top-down constraints allow non-unitary behaviour at the lower levels. It may well play a key role in the quantum measurement problem (the dual of state vector preparation) [5]. One can bear in mind here that wherever equivalence classes of entities play a key role, such as in Crutchfield’s computational mechanics [29], this is an indication that top-down causation is at play.,,, Life and the brain: living systems are highly structured modular hierarchical systems, and there are many similarities to the digital computer case, even though they are not digital computers. The lower level interactions are constrained by network connections, thereby creating possibilities of truly complex behaviour. Top-down causation is prevalent at all levels in the brain: for example it is crucial to vision [24,25] as well as the relation of the individual brain to society [2]. The hardware (the brain) can do nothing without the excitations that animate it: indeed this is the difference between life and death. The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf
also of note is semiotic information,,
The Onset of Information on Earth - UprightBiped Excerpt: There are two distinct categories of semiotic systems. One category uses representations where the arrangement of the medium (like a pheromone) is reducible to the physical properties of the medium itself; the other uses representations that have a spatial (dimensional) orientation and are not reducible to their physical make-up (like the words on this page). The first type is found throughout the living kingdom. The second type is found nowhere but in recorded language and mathematics (and in the genetic code). This leads to an intractable observation of physical reality; the singularly-unique material conditions required for dimensional semiosis, which would ostensibly not exist on Earth until the rise of human intelligence, were entirely evident at the very origin of life. They are the physical means by which the living cell became organized. http://biosemiosis.org/ Here is some reading material that is recommended by UprightBiped The ‘Cybernetic Cut’: Progressing from Description to Prescription in Systems Theory - David L. Abel 2008 http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCSJ/TOCSJ-2-252.pdf Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages - H. H. Pattee - 2008 https://www.academia.edu/4775461/Physical_and_functional_conditions_for_symbols_codes_and_languages The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut - H. H. Pattee - 2001 GENERAL NATURE OF THE GENETIC CODE FOR PROTEINS - Crick - 1961 http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/B/J/_/scbcbj.pdf Life’s Irreducible Structure - Live mechanisms and information in DNA are boundary conditions with a sequence of boundaries above them - Michael Polanyi - 1968 http://www.compilerpress.ca/Competitiveness/Anno/Anno%20Polanyi%20Lifes%20Irreducible%20Structure%20Acience%201968.htm
As you can see, some very bright minds have put a lot of effort into clarifying this information issue. If you want to accuse them of 'arguing in a circle' when they claim information comes only from a mind, then I will write you off as a troll and request the admin to stop you from pestering me.bornagain77_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Florabama
Thousands of generations of artificially selected plants and animals have NEVER been shown to cross higher taxonomic categories.
Of course not. You really don't understand Darwin's theory, do you? If you did you would realise that, according to his theory, descendants can never be in a different, higher level taxonomic category from their ancestors.
But by the same token, there are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation either...
Believe it or not, we can prove things beyond reasonable doubt outside laboratories. Like speciation.CLAVDIVS_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

bornagain77
CLAVDIVS OK, I grant that information is its own physical entity. bornagain77 Quite the concession, and yet you speedily passed the point up as if it is nothing of importance.
On the contrary, I think the point is very important. However, as we agree on it, discussing it is an irrelevant distraction from my question that you still have not answered: Is “functional coded information” a quantity that can be calculated without assuming an intelligent being is required for its creation? If yes, please provide the procedure to calculate it. If not, then you’re arguing in a circle when you claim there is “no evidence whatsoever that undirected material processes can generate functional coded information.” Arguing in a circle -- begging the question, assuming your conclusion, petitio principii: This means a fallacious argument where the conclusion is based on premises which already include the conclusion. So, when you claim "undirected material processes cannot generate functional coded information", you need to have a definition of "functional coded information" that does not require that "functional coded information can't be generated by undirected material processes". Otherwise, you're just restating a meaningless tautology: "something that can't be generated by undirected material processes is something that can't be generated by undirected material processes." Well d'uh. This tells us nothing and proves nothing. So you need to define "functional coded information" in such a way that it can be measured or identified independently from the question of whether or not it can be created by undirected material processes. For example, "functional coded information is equal to mass in kg" or "Gibbs entropy". This definition is what I'm asking for.CLAVDIVS_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS @ 15 "These differences within a species are called varieties by Charles in The Origin and they are an essential building block of his theory: “Thus the small differences distinguishing varieties of the same species, will steadily tend to increase till they come to equal the greater differences between species of the same genus, or even of distinct genera.” Artificial selection quite to the contrary of your point and the never ending frustration of Darwin and Darwinists, has all but falsified Darwinism. Thousands of generations of artificially selected plants and animals have NEVER been shown to cross higher taxonomic categories. Canines remain canines, felines, felines, bovines, bovines, etc. etc. The fact that you point to artificial selection as evidence of Darwinism, is in fact prima facia evidence that you have not thought much about the actual facts of the matter and have just swallowed the party line without a smidgeon of critical thinking. I recommend the book that contains the following quote. “The fossil record may be used to justify virtually any position, and often is. There are long eras in which nothing happens. The fire alarms of change then go off in the night. A detailed and continuous record of transition between species is missing, those neat sedimentary layers, as Gould noted time and again, never revealing precisely the phenomena that Darwin proposed to explain. It is hardly a matter on which paleontologists have been reticent. At the very beginning of his treatise ‘Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,’ Robert Carroll observes quite correctly that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualist account” of evolution. A “strictly gradualistic” account is precisely what Darwin’s theory demands: It is the heart and soul of the theory. But by the same token, there are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation either, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. This is the conclusion suggested as well by more than six thousand years of artificial selection, the practice of barnyard and backyard alike. Nothing can induce a chicken to lay a square egg or to persuade a pig to develop wheels mounted on ball bearings. It would be a violation, as chickens and pigs are prompt to observe and often with indignation, of their essential nature. If species have an essential nature that beyond limits cannot change, then random variations and natural selection cannot change them. We must look elsewhere for an account that does justice to their nature or to the facts. “ David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, pp 188-189Florabama_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

"OK, I grant that information is its own physical entity." Quite the concession, and yet you speedily passed the point up as if it is nothing of importance. Is empirically falsifying the reductive materialistic premises of Darwinian evolution, i.e. that information is 'emergent' from a material basis. a big yawn for you? I would think that should rate a little higher. Moreover, I don't understand exactly what you are insinuating by 'arguing in a circle'. Please expand on your question with unambiguous clarity and detail as to what you mean exactly. Preferably, use unguided material processes to generate your next post so as to establish the validity of your underlying materialistic claim that generating functional information is no big deal for unguided material processes! :)bornagain77_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

bornagain77
bornagain77 The primary elephant in the living room problem for the Darwinian meta-narrative, besides the fossil record (and besides the discordant genetic evidence), is that they have no evidence whatsoever that undirected material processes can generate functional coded information. CLAVDIVS Is “functional coded information” a quantity that can be calculated without assuming an intelligent being is required for its creation? If yes, please provide the procedure to calculate it. bornagain77 Information is a physical ‘quantity’ in that it is now shown to have a thermodynamic content: For calculation of information content from a thermodynamic perspective see here: Information has a thermodynamic content and Quantum Soul – Sept. 2016 CLAVDIVS Is that what you’re saying? We can measure “functional coded information” of any system by measuring its Gibbs entropy? bornagain77 I’ve left “functional coded information”, which involves higher level, i.e. ‘top down’ arrangements of matter (G. Ellis), to one side for now and focused on first establishing the primary fact that information is its own physical entity.
OK, I grant that information is its own physical entity. Now can you answer the question: Is “functional coded information” a quantity that can be calculated without assuming an intelligent being is required for its creation? If yes, please provide the procedure to calculate it. If not, then you're arguing in a circle when you claim there is "no evidence whatsoever that undirected material processes can generate functional coded information."CLAVDIVS_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, I've left “functional coded information”, which involves higher level, i.e. 'top down' arrangements of matter (G. Ellis), to one side for now and focused on first establishing the primary fact that information is its own physical entity. i.e. What is now established by showing that information has a 'thermodynamic content' is that information is its own independent physical entity which, directly contrary to the reductive materialism upon which Darwinian evolution is built, is not reducible to, or 'emergent from', a material basis.
Maxwell’s demon demonstration (knowledge of a particle’s position) turns information into energy – November 2010 Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform Information: From Maxwell’s demon to Landauer’s eraser – Lutz and Ciliberto – Oct. 25, 2015 – Physics Today Excerpt: The above examples of gedanken-turned-real experiments provide a firm empirical foundation for the physics of information and tangible evidence of the intimate connection between information and energy. They have been followed by additional experiments and simulations along similar lines.12 (See, for example, Physics Today, August 2014, page 60.) Collectively, that body of experimental work further demonstrates the equivalence of information and thermodynamic entropies at thermal equilibrium.,,, (2008) Sagawa and Ueda’s (theoretical) result extends the second law to explicitly incorporate information; it shows that information, entropy, and energy should be treated on equal footings. http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Information.pdf J. Parrondo, J. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa. Thermodynamics of information. Nature Physics, 11:131-139, 2015.
In fact, in quantum mechanics it is the material, again completely contrary to the reductive materialism upon which Darwinian evolution is built, which is ultimately reducible to an information basis, i.e. it is not the information that is reducible to a material basis.
"it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley)) “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? 48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” 49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1 Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
Moreover, it should be noted that living organisms have a certain order that’s very different from the 'random thermodynamic jostling' of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity.
Jim Al-Khalili, at the 2:30 minute mark of the following video states, ",,and Physicists and Chemists have had a long time to try and get use to it (Quantum Mechanics). Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules. The balls are the atoms. The sticks are the bonds between the atoms. And when they can't build them physically in the lab nowadays they have very powerful computers that will simulate a huge molecule.,, It doesn't really require much in the way of quantum mechanics in the way to explain it." At the 6:52 minute mark of the video, Jim Al-Khalili goes on to state: “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”. Jim Al-Khalili – Quantum biology – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzCkeTPR3Q
That Darwinian materialists have no real clue as to exactly why biological life would be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium is made evident by the following video:
Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCs3WXHqOv8&index=3&list=PLtAP1KN7ahiYxgYCc-0xiUAhNWjT4q6LD
That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various 'random' configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php Quantum correlations do not imply instant causation – August 12, 2016 Excerpt: A research team led by a Heriot-Watt scientist has shown that the universe is even weirder than had previously been thought. In 2015 the universe was officially proven to be weird. After many decades of research, a series of experiments showed that distant, entangled objects can seemingly interact with each other through what Albert Einstein famously dismissed as “Spooky action at a distance”. A new experiment by an international team led by Heriot-Watt’s Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi has now found that the universe is even weirder than that: entangled objects do not cause each other to behave the way they do. http://phys.org/news/2016-08-quantum-imply-instant-causation.html Experimental test of nonlocal causality – August 10, 2016 DISCUSSION Previous work on causal explanations beyond local hidden-variable models focused on testing Leggett’s crypto-nonlocality (7, 42, 43), a class of models with a very specific choice of hidden variable that is unrelated to Bell’s local causality (44). In contrast, we make no assumptions on the form of the hidden variable and test all models ,,, Our results demonstrate that a causal influence from one measurement outcome to the other, which may be subluminal, superluminal, or even instantaneous, cannot explain the observed correlations.,,, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600162.full
To reiterate, a beyond space and time cause must be supplied to explain why quantum information/entanglement is in living organism on such a massive scale, i.e. in every DNA and protein molecule. As a Theist, I have a beyond space and time cause to appeal to, i.e. I can appeal directly to John 1:1-4 verse:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
bornagain77_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 17 Gibbs entropy is equal to the Shannon information needed to define the collection of microstates of a system. Is that what you're saying? We can measure "functional coded information" of any system by measuring its Gibbs entropy? And you're saying undirected material processes can *never* increase functional coded information --- so undirected material processes can *never* decrease Gibbs entropy? Is this correct?CLAVDIVS_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

"The differences between dogs and wolves, whilst they’re similar enough to be the same species, is perfectly consistent with Darwinism and no inconvenience at all to Darwinists." Seeing as Dawkins himself claimed it as proof of macro-evolution and yet the subspeciation of dogs was found to be wrought by a loss of genetic information, methinks thou art much too forgiving of thy beloved materialistic fable. "The differences between modern humans and Neanderthals, whilst they’re similar enough to probably be the same species, is perfectly consistent with Darwinism and no inconvenience at all to Darwinists, either." And again thou art much too ready to grant forgiveness for a century of Darwinists misleading the public on Neanderthals. Art thou the Catholic Priest of Darwinism that Darwinists can recite their confessions to and pay penance to for their past transgressions? If so, you must be exceedingly rich. "These differences within a species are called varieties by Charles in The Origin and they are an essential building block of his theory: “Thus the small differences distinguishing varieties of the same species, will steadily tend to increase till they come to equal the greater differences between species of the same genus, or even of distinct genera.” I know the theory. The problem is that variation is always bounded 'within kind'. i.e. The theory does not match what is found in the real world!
“Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly from his book, "Out of Control" Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun, - American Scientist - 1997 Excerpt: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,”... "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade." (“the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”) Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516) http://www.jstor.org/stable/27856885?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Alleged Instances of Observed Speciation -- Evolution's Smoking Gun Is Still Missing - William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells July 1, 2016 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/alleged_instanc102965.html “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the position of some people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” Roger Lewin - Historic Chicago 'Macroevolution' conference of 1980 "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire" Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883 Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282
Here is a detailed refutation, by Casey Luskin, to TalkOrigins severely misleading site on the claimed evidence for observed macro-evolution (speciation);
Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Casey Luskin - January 2012 - article http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/talk_origins_sp055281.html
as to: "Is “functional coded information” a quantity that can be calculated without assuming an intelligent being is required for its creation? If yes, please provide the procedure to calculate it." Information is a physical 'quantity' in that it is now shown to have a thermodynamic content: For calculation of information content from a thermodynamic perspective see here
Information has a thermodynamic content and Quantum Soul – Sept. 2016 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/moshe-averick-whats-keeping-the-origin-of-life-messiah/#comment-617869
bornagain77_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 11 Is "functional coded information" a quantity that can be calculated without assuming an intelligent being is required for its creation? If yes, please provide the procedure to calculate it. If no, then you're just arguing in a circle.CLAVDIVS_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 9 The differences between dogs and wolves, whilst they're similar enough to be the same species, is perfectly consistent with Darwinism and no inconvenience at all to Darwinists. The differences between modern humans and Neanderthals, whilst they're similar enough to probably be the same species, is perfectly consistent with Darwinism and no inconvenience at all to Darwinists, either. These differences within a species are called varieties by Charles in The Origin and they are an essential building block of his theory: "Thus the small differences distinguishing varieties of the same species, will steadily tend to increase till they come to equal the greater differences between species of the same genus, or even of distinct genera."CLAVDIVS_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

The data is that Neanderthals are “sharply distinguished from modern humans by a wide range of cranial and postcranial characters”.
In reality, humans have always been humans though the Darwinian fogma won't let'em see it. And for a guy who claims to not be an Atheist/Darwinist, you sure do love pedalling their just-so-stories.Vy_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Do Chihuahuas and St. Bernards have different cranial and post cranial characters?suckerspawn_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, would Pygmies have different "...cranial and post cranial characters," from modern humans? Are they less than human? Would the Elephant Man have a different "...cranial and post cranial character" than humans? Would those who suffer from dwarfism have, "cranial and post cranial characters," different from normal humans? What is known about Neanderthal is that he walked upright, wore clothes, used fire, used tools, painted and now buried his dead. Your assumption that he is less than human is clearly a faulty assumption that is simply an opinion derived from your worldview and not the facts.Florabama_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

"What is the meta-narrative that you’re referring to?" The Darwinian meta-narrative is that all life, in all its stunning diversity and unfathomable complexity, arose in a bottom up fashion from simpler life through the undirected material process of random mutations and natural selection. This is generally depicted as a branching tree diagram of simple to complex, i.e. universal common descent. The fossil record does not reveal this branching tree pattern of universal common descent that Darwinists envisioned. The Cambrian explosion by itself, if not an outright falsification of common descent, at least severely challenges common descent. The primary elephant in the living room problem for the Darwinian meta-narrative, besides the fossil record (and besides the discordant genetic evidence), is that they have no evidence whatsoever that undirected material processes can generate functional coded information.
Information Enigma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
Whenever we trace to the source of functional coded information, we always find a mind. There is even a prize of up to 3 million dollars for the first person that can prove unguided material processes can generate information and thus falsify the primary contention of Intelligent Design that information only comes from a mind:
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 3 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/
bornagain77_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 What is the meta-narrative that you're referring to?CLAVDIVS_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, and I could just as well argue that wolves are “sharply distinguished from modern dogs by a wide range of cranial and postcranial characters”. And just as well ask why that fact would be inconvenient for Darwinists. Since I have little reason to hope for you ever to be honest towards the facts, given your history on UD, I'll answer the question. The reason it is inconvenient for Darwinists is because it does not fit into their meta-narrative. Dawkins is on record saying that dogs are proof of macro-evolution, but the inconvenient truth of the matter is that dogs are just a sub-species of the originally created wolf kind:
Caveman’s Best Friend, Evolution’s Newest Upset - October 2011 Excerpt: Our view of domestication as a process has also begun to change, with recent research showing that, in dogs, alterations in only a small number of genes can have large effects in terms of size, shape and behavior.,,, It should be noted that dogs and wolves can interbreed,,, http://crev.info/content/20111029-cavemans_best_friend Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists (claim) that dog breeds prove macroevolution. However, virtually all the dog breeds are generated by losses or disturbances of gene functions and/or developmental processes. Moreover, all the three subfamilies of the family of wild dogs (Canidae) appear abruptly in the fossil record. http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/interview-with-wolf-ekkehard-lonnig/ The Dog Delusion - October 30, 2014 Excerpt: In his latest book, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany takes on the widespread view that dog breeds prove macroevolution.,,, He shows in great detail that the incredible variety of dog breeds, going back in origin several thousand years ago but especially to the last few centuries, represents no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels. Michael Behe writes: "Dr. Lönnig shows forcefully that one of the chief examples Darwinists rely on to convince the public of macroevolution -- the enormous variation in dogs -- actually shows the opposite. Extremes in size and anatomy come at the cost of broken genes and poor health. Even several gene duplications were found to interfere strongly with normal growth and development as is also often the case in humans. So where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution now?" The science here is indeed solid. Intriguingly, Lönnig's prediction from 2013 on starch digestion in wolves has already been confirmed in a study published this year.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/the_dog_delusio090751.html podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00
bornagain77_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

tjguy The data is that Neanderthals are "sharply distinguished from modern humans by a wide range of cranial and postcranial characters". Why is that inconvenient?CLAVDIVS_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Dean @1
Can we just stop pretending now that the Neanderthals were anything but modern humans, perhaps with vitamin deficiencies?
No, I doubt it. Evidence is not all that important here. The problem is that Neanderthals as modern humans does not fit their worldview so there has to be a different interpretation to explain the inconvenient data.tjguy_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 Great. You agree that Neanderthals are systematically different from modern humans. That's a good reason not to regard them as modern humans with vitamin deficiencies. Like I was saying. PS: Dr Ian Tattersall agrees too; he says that Neanderthals are "sharply distinguished from modern humans by a wide range of cranial and postcranial characters". (PNAS Vol. 96 No. 13, 7117–7119)CLAVDIVS_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

If you are agreeing with me that Darwinists tried to force fit Neanderthals into their preferred narrative, and ignored all evidence to the contrary, then yes. And if you are agreeing with the undeniable fact that Darwinists have a long history of being severely misleading, and even downright fraudulent, with the fossil record, then double yes. I call it the "Fit!,, Damn you, FIT!!" method of science that Darwinists employ when it comes to them forcibly trying to make the fossil record fit their preferred narrative! :)
“Neanderthal man turned out to be not an ape-man but rather truly human. Java man turned out to be an arboreal ape. Piltdown man turned out to be a colossal hoax. Peking man turned out to be a monkey. Nebraska man turned out to be a wild pig. Lucy was apparently a chimpanzee. Yet, in each case, when these discoveries were made, the popular media reported them as hard proof for evolutionary theory.” –Ron Rhodes - The 10 Things You Should Know - pg 86-87 No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests - Oct. 21, 2013 Excerpt: The article, "No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans," relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins -- humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. "None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor," Gómez-Robles said. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131021153202.htm Has Science Shown That We Evolved from Ape-like Creatures? by Casey Luskin - Fall 2013 (useful references at the end of the article) Excerpt: A closer look at the literature shows that hominin fossils generally fall into one of two categories—ape-like species or human-like species (of the genus Homo)—and that there is a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the claims of many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors. In fact, scientists are quite sharply divided over who or what our human ancestors even were. Newly discovered fossils are often initially presented to the public with great enthusiasm and fanfare, but once cooler heads prevail, their status as human evolutionary ancestors is invariably called into question. - http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo26-science-faith/has-science-shown-that-we-evolved-from-ape-like-creatures.php "A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012) “What I saw about the fossil record again,, was that Gould and Eldridge were experts in the area where the animal fossil record is most complete. That is marine invertebrates.,, And the reason for this is that when,, a bird, or a human, or an ape, or a wolf, or whatever, dies,, normally it does not get fossilized. It decays in the open, or is eaten by scavengers. Things get fossilized when they get covered over quickly with sediments so that they are protected from this natural destructive process. So if you want to be a fossil, the way to go about it is to live in the shallow seas, where you get covered over by sediments when you die,,. Most of the animal fossils are of that kind and it is in that area where the fossil record is most complete. That there is a consistent pattern.,, I mean there is evolution in the sense of variation, just like the peppered moth example. Things do vary, but they vary within the type. The new types appear suddenly, fully formed, without an evolutionary history and then they stay fundamentally stable with (cyclical) variation after their sudden appearance, and stasis (according) to the empirical observations made by Gould and Eldridge. Well now you see, I was aware of a number of examples of where evolutionary intermediates were cited. This was brought up as soon as people began to make the connection and question the (Darwinian) profession about their theory in light of the controversy. But the examples of claimed evolutionary transitionals, oddly enough, come from the area of the fossil record where fossilization is rarest. Where it is least likely to happen.,,, One of things that amused me is that there are so many fossil candidates for human ancestorship, and so very few fossils that are candidates for the great apes.,, There should be just as many. But why not? Any economist can give you the answer to that. Human ancestors have a great American value and so they are produced at a much greater rate.,, These also were grounds to be suspicious of what was going on,,, ,,,if the problem is the greatest where the fossil record is most complete and if the confirming examples are found where fossils are rarest, that doesn’t sound like it could be the explanation." - Phillip Johnson - April 2012 - audio/video 15:05 minute mark to 19:15 minute mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJDlBvbPSMA&feature=player_detailpage#t=903s
bornagain77_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 So you agree with me that Neanderthals are systematically different from modern humans.CLAVDIVS_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

"Neanderthals are systematically different from modern humans." And yet:
Neanderthals were stereotyped as savages for a century — all because of one French scientist - Sep 20, 2016 Excerpt: Ever since that scientific description was published in 1911, we humans have told the story of Neanderthals in a way that makes us look good: We were smarter, less savage, better equipped to inherit the Earth than the Neanderthal.,,, The dominant narrative about Neanderthals is based on the work of a French paleoanthropologist, Marcellin Boule. Boule is one of the premier paleoanthropologists at the beginning of the 20th century.,,, ,,, all the different characteristics he could have emphasized, he emphasized the primitive. His conclusion is that this Neanderthal is going to walk with a kind of hunched posture. He's going to have really divergent big toes, which is considered a more primitive characteristic. We look at it today and say, "Geez, that was really biased.",,, Later, in the middle to second half of the 20th century, scientists and anthropologists begin to go back and look at Boule's original material. They’re starting to reexamine Neanderthals and look at their culture and look at their sophisticated tool use.,,, We now say, "Oh, look, they have culture. They bury their dead. They can start fires. We're interbreeding. They're more human than we first thought." There was a great publication a couple of months ago that points out Neanderthals carried fire starters. That's fascinating, right? I think that what happens is we keep saying they're more like us. It's a very additive thing. We keep adding all these characteristics. They're not so different from us,,, http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12968814/neanderthals-savages-stereotype-boule What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution? - Denyse O'Leary - August 4, 2014 Excerpt: "In the minds of the European anthropologists who first studied them, Neanderthals were the embodiment of primitive humans, subhumans if you will," noted Fred H. Smith, a physical anthropologist at Loyola University in Chicago in 2003. But "The evidence for cognitive inferiority is simply not there," says Paolo Villa, a curator at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History in 2014. "What we are saying is that the conventional view of Neanderthals is not true.",,, A 2012 article in Scientific American acknowledged,,, "The origin of our genus, Homo, is one of the biggest mysteries facing scholars of human evolution." Intriguing finds lead to a barrage of conflicting narratives, partial and uncertain, much like ancient mythologies.,,, Basic outlines of our origins are admitted to be uncertain and conflicting: In PNAS, paleobiologist Bernard Wood puts it like this: "The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear. Although many of my colleagues are agreed regarding the "what" with respect to Homo, there is no consensus as to the "how" and "when" questions.",,, Science writer Henry Gee explains in Nature, "We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh. Yet we cling to it." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/what_can_we_res088531.html (Homo Erectus) Skull "Rewrites" Story of Human Evolution -- Again - Casey Luskin - October 22, 2013 Excerpt: "There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/skull_rewrites_078221.html Early human skull has inner ear “long thought” unique to Neanderthals - July 9, 2014 Excerpt: Re-examination of a circa 100,000-year-old archaic early human skull found 35 years ago in Northern China has revealed the surprising presence of an inner-ear formation long thought to occur only in Neandertals. https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/early-human-skull-has-inner-ear-long-thought-unique-to-neanderthals/ Neanderthal Myth and Orwellian Double-Think - Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. - 2012 Excerpt: Modern humans and Neanderthals are essentially genetically identical. Neanderthals are unequivocally fully human based on a number of actual genetic studies using ancient DNA extracted from Neanderthal remains. The DNA data fully confirms the numerous anatomical studies performed on a wide variety of skeletal remains found in diverse geographical regions across Europe and the Middle East. The anatomical data not only shows that Neanderthals had fully human bone structure, but larger brains and more robust features. In fact, to the uncritical observer, they appear superior to modern humans. http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/3455fa8d785a887abd8316c1505a8b8c-33.php “We found that the mtDNA sites where Neandertals differed from modern man tended to be at mutational hotspots—sites where many modern humans also differ. In addition, at the sites where Neandertals differed from each other, one of them would match the modern human.” - Dr David DeWitt "The majority of the Neandertal divergences overlap with those of the humans (Fig. 3), reflecting the fact that Neandertals fall inside the variation of present-day humans." (A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome, May 2010, sciencemag) Neanderthals … They’re Just Like Us?, Nat Geo, 2012 Excerpt: Take any two unrelated humans today, [Svante] Pääbo noted, and they’ll differ in millions of places in their genetic code. But the Neanderthal genome varies on average from that of H. sapiens in only about a hundred thousand positions. Pääbo and his colleagues are now trying to figure out the consequences of those differences. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121012-neanderthals-science-paabo-dna-sex-breeding-human Humans and Neanderthals Are One - May 2010 Excerpt: In short, the evidence has brought humans and Neanderthals together as mere varieties of the same species, while simultaneously increasing the genetic distance between humans and the great apes. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201005.htm#20100508a Neanderthals behaving like us - Dec. 2013 Excerpt: This fascinating insight into community life is worthy of our attention because the group members were Neanderthals. For too long, they have been portrayed as pre-human and have been used to buttress evolutionary stories about the origins of mankind. However, archaeological evidence discussed here (and here) suggests that these stories are embellished with evolutionary spin. The evidence shows that Neanderthals are human cousins and deserve quite a different place in history. Unfortunately, this truth about Neanderthals has been missed in the past because the presumption of evolutionary transformation has constrained the minds of researchers. They illustrate the maxim: "if we don't look for it, we won't find it." Another recent finding that is related to this theme is that a Neanderthal community in Italy organised their cave in a way that is recognizably human. The punchline is the same: here are "close cousins" that do not deserve to be called pre-human. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2013/12/03/neanderthals_behaving_like_us
bornagain77_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

Dean_from_Ohio Because Neanderthals are systematically different from modern humans. Is that a good reason?CLAVDIVS_{October 5, 2016
October
10
Oct
5
05
2016
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply