Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 85 of 85

Thread: Barriers to crossbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans -discussion

  1. #76
    Regular Member Gannicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-04-18
    Posts
    230

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L51
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H7

    Ethnic group
    Albanian - ?celt? - tosk - myzeqjar
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Alyan View Post
    Not only is there a lack of respected authorities who'd agree, but not a single religion's claims on the birth and development of life/world stands. To say nothing how events like the Exodus have been shown to more or less have never happened.

    To clarify, i am not that kind of creationist that you think but still evolutionism makes sense mostly on paper, for example we have an idea on how a specie could be and how we are now, but what about the mid species?
    Look i am in a period of indecision between creationism and evolutionism, i have been an evolutionism for my entire life and am currently reconsidering my religious/scientofoc views, so please help me solving some phisical limits to evolutionism:
    First of all, can you explain me abiogenesis and how an almost infinite series of most likely impossible coincidences have brought us to what we have today, like cmon, some things such as DNA are to complex to be randomly created, The DNA is a request of information, a request can only be formulated by a sobre well defined intelligence with power of will, the only way DNA can come to existence is throug other DNA generating it or from an intelligence capable of creating and destroing by its will, so an entity that can violate the basic principle of: nothing can be created, nothing can be destroyed, everything can be transformed.
    So sort of speaking, a GOD.
    If you are gonna help me find an answer to these doubts i would be infinitely glad to you.

  2. #77
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gannicus View Post
    First of all, can you explain me abiogenesis and how an almost infinite series of most likely impossible coincidences have brought us to what we have today, like cmon, some things such as DNA are to complex to be randomly created, The DNA is a request of information, a request can only be formulated by a sobre well defined intelligence with power of will, the only way DNA can come to existence is throug other DNA generating it or from an intelligence capable of creating and destroing by its will, so an entity that can violate the basic principle of: nothing can be created, nothing can be destroyed, everything can be transformed.
    So sort of speaking, a GOD.
    First of all you must know that abiogenesis and other hypotheses pertaining to the origin of life have nothing to do with the evolution theory, which pertains to the way that species change, diversify, diverge or converge throughout the time after life already caught on. Evolutionism is the best scientific explanation irrespective of whether God created the cosmos and life itself on earth directly or not, which is a totally different matter (and in my opinion - my being a religious believer notwithstanding - God is a supreme creative intelligence, and not a magician with a magic wand making things pop out into existence without any reasonable material explanation. Pope Francis has a similar understanding, by the way).

    I think your issues may not be with evolutionism, but with a confused notion, common among creationists, that evolutionism has anything to do with the origin of life or even of the cosmos itself and that it necessarily and automatically negates the possibility that something divine was behind it all. That's not the case. The evolution theory has all the concrete scientific evidences in its favour. Creationism does not. Mutations happen and can be seen all the time, selection happens under different (natural and social) environmental pressures, some individuals in any species have more reproductive success than others. It's just that. What you say about the origin of DNA and of life can be discussed... but it has nothing to do with the theory of natural selection.

    The largest (and one of the most traditional) of all Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church, has accepted the evolution theory since many decades ago, because it simply looked at all the evidences and made the obvious conclusion that not only is it the more plausible explanation for the variation we see in living beings (and we have seen diversification of species happening in real time in the last decades and centuries, it's not just a hypothetical scenario or something studied in fossils and now in ancient DNA), but also, and decisively, that it does not negate the fundaments of the Catholic theology. It just explains how the creation developed after life began, nothing else.

    The Genesis was never a scientific book anyway, but a religious and moral book, and it's clear - not my opinion, this is the official understanding of many great theologians - that the Genesis is an allegory about the relation between nature and humankind, the whole creation, and God. It shouldn't be read as a scientific paper, its authors were not looking for objectivity, far less for empirical experiments and conclusions about material processes.

  3. #78
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Gannicus View Post
    Then explain me the carpal discontinuity ( hope i pronounced it correctly ) where a lot of unique fossils were found, and they didn't have any relation with other living form, then if there was evolutionism find me the fossils of species in the middle of their evolution, for example find me a meateating plant wich is in the middle of her stage and that both eats meat and absorbs sunlight.
    Then i have even more argument but right now i think I wrote enough.
    That's not surprising when you consider how absolutely rare preserved fossils - and even the very conditions that will naturally lead to living beings becoming fossils instead of being totally decomposed over time - in fact are. If even 1% of all species that have ever existed have been fossilized and can be readily found by scientists, that would still be a huge lucky feat. It's not that easy to find "intermediary stages", but apart from that there is also the issue that the idea of an "intermediary form" between species A and species B may be a complete fantasy, because in fact there may have been dozens of slow and minor changes that built up along hundreds of thousands or even millions of years until the process ended up with species A being totally different from species B. You'd have to find loads of "middle stages" in that evolutionary path, and another fact is that changes are sometimes really fast, not allowing for a clear "middle stage", for instance when a mutation is so favorable and the environmental pressure is so strong (killing off many of the specimens) that a huge genetic sweep happens changing the species much faster than the average evolution of a species. I don't think you should expect, for instance, that it should be easy to find a "middle-ground" meat-eating and also sunlight-absorbing plant. It may just have happened that under a certain natural condition all such plants died out rapidly and only the meat-eating variant thrived and replaced them.

  4. #79
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    ^^Or the contact wasn't consensual.

    I guess I'll be the politically incorrect one, and say I can understand it.

    I'd also say (sorry, gentlemen) that it's the male of our species who isn't very "picky". I think women are far more discriminating in these matters, and far less likely even to cross "racial" lines within our species, and the papers seem to bear that out, despite urban legends to the contrary.
    I read somwhere that Neanderthal Man and Sapiens Woman was fertile while the countrary was not, or always give sterile progeniture. Did that fact change in the meantime?

  5. #80
    Regular Member Gannicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-04-18
    Posts
    230

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L51
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H7

    Ethnic group
    Albanian - ?celt? - tosk - myzeqjar
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    First of all you must know that abiogenesis and other hypotheses pertaining to the origin of life have nothing to do with the evolution theory, which pertains to the way that species change, diversify, diverge or converge throughout the time after life already caught on. Evolutionism is the best scientific explanation irrespective of whether God created the cosmos and life itself on earth directly or not, which is a totally different matter (and in my opinion - my being a religious believer notwithstanding - God is a supreme creative intelligence, and not a magician with a magic wand making things pop out into existence without any reasonable material explanation. Pope Francis has a similar understanding, by the way).
    I think your issues may not be with evolutionism, but with a confused notion, common among creationists, that evolutionism has anything to do with the origin of life or even of the cosmos itself and that it necessarily and automatically negates the possibility that something divine was behind it all. That's not the case. The evolution theory has all the concrete scientific evidences in its favour. Creationism does not. Mutations happen and can be seen all the time, selection happens under different (natural and social) environmental pressures, some individuals in any species have more reproductive success than others. It's just that. What you say about the origin of DNA and of life can be discussed... but it has nothing to do with the theory of natural selection.
    The largest (and one of the most traditional) of all Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church, has accepted the evolution theory since many decades ago, because it simply looked at all the evidences and made the obvious conclusion that not only is it the more plausible explanation for the variation we see in living beings (and we have seen diversification of species happening in real time in the last decades and centuries, it's not just a hypothetical scenario or something studied in fossils and now in ancient DNA), but also, and decisively, that it does not negate the fundaments of the Catholic theology. It just explains how the creation developed after life began, nothing else.
    The Genesis was never a scientific book anyway, but a religious and moral book, and it's clear - not my opinion, this is the official understanding of many great theologians - that the Genesis is an allegory about the relation between nature and humankind, the whole creation, and God. It shouldn't be read as a scientific paper, its authors were not looking for objectivity, far less for empirical experiments and conclusions about material processes.
    First of all i thank you very much for your time and devotion into explaining me theese concepts, considering that today most people choose the faster solution of just offending and telling you how backwarded you are to doubt certain principles the fact that you came here in a polite way exposing your arguments with trasparency is a really step forward to a civil discussion, so for this thank you.
    Now about your points you made a very valid statement about saying how evolutionism doesn't put into doubt at all the existence or not of a god and how the 2 things do not have a conflict, in relation with all the other classical atheist evolutionist who reject anything else outside of sience you gave a proof of being very openminded and unbiased, this is a good thing if we want to have a discussion with the only goal of spreading information and not biases, so for this thank you again.
    At the end you strenghtened my evolutionist+creationist combined thaughts, you made me understand that I disagree only with abiogenesis, but evolutionism, for wich there are concrete proofs is a fact, nice job, thank you for your time.

  6. #81
    Regular Member Gannicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-04-18
    Posts
    230

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L51
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H7

    Ethnic group
    Albanian - ?celt? - tosk - myzeqjar
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    That's not surprising when you consider how absolutely rare preserved fossils - and even the very conditions that will naturally lead to living beings becoming fossils instead of being totally decomposed over time - in fact are. If even 1% of all species that have ever existed have been fossilized and can be readily found by scientists, that would still be a huge lucky feat. It's not that easy to find "intermediary stages", but apart from that there is also the issue that the idea of an "intermediary form" between species A and species B may be a complete fantasy, because in fact there may have been dozens of slow and minor changes that built up along hundreds of thousands or even millions of years until the process ended up with species A being totally different from species B. You'd have to find loads of "middle stages" in that evolutionary path, and another fact is that changes are sometimes really fast, not allowing for a clear "middle stage", for instance when a mutation is so favorable and the environmental pressure is so strong (killing off many of the specimens) that a huge genetic sweep happens changing the species much faster than the average evolution of a species. I don't think you should expect, for instance, that it should be easy to find a "middle-ground" meat-eating and also sunlight-absorbing plant. It may just have happened that under a certain natural condition all such plants died out rapidly and only the meat-eating variant thrived and replaced them.
    Even do now i am a little bit less skeptical about evolutionism still i don't think that 100% of what darwin said is correct.
    I mean, a specie slowly evolving into a better version of it is plausible but still need to have more proofs about the possibilty of a micro organism evolving into a more complicated man, still i believe this doesn't diminish at all creationism, if not it strenghtens it up:,
    logically a God, even if infinitely smart, would never be able to create all the principles of science and life in one try, meaning that he would never be able to create the man at his first time experimenting life, so he created time, space and matter and, by working before on the non living part of matter to experiment science and then by starting to experiment viruses, then bacterias, get to the point of having more complex creatures such as men, fishes, birds and other more complex creatures whose predecessors are only a slightly worse version of it, and every year making his creations better and better.
    Thank you very much for your time and the reasoning we did together.

  7. #82
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    29-04-18
    Posts
    74


    Country: Norway



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Maybe that guy didn't even consider the possibility that, given the very wide genetic differentiation between AMH and Neanderthals, only the children of a Neanderthal male + AMH female couple were fertile.
    This is the sort of possibilities that I wanted to discuss. Haldanes rules and all that.

    Gannicls, while the probability of evolution producing complicated organisms such as us may seem infinitly improbable, remember that every other outcome is equally improbable but does not contain us contemplating the probablities. Also, I've met Varg and if you are taking his ideas seriously as well-founded or scientific opinion, you need to exercise considerably more selectivity in your sources. Just because someone is on youtube is not a good reason to take his opinions seriously.

  8. #83
    Regular Member Gannicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-04-18
    Posts
    230

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L51
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H7

    Ethnic group
    Albanian - ?celt? - tosk - myzeqjar
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Gnarl View Post
    This is the sort of possibilities that I wanted to discuss. Haldanes rules and all that.

    Gannicls, while the probability of evolution producing complicated organisms such as us may seem infinitly improbable, remember that every other outcome is equally improbable but does not contain us contemplating the probablities. Also, I've met Varg and if you are taking his ideas seriously as well-founded or scientific opinion, you need to exercise considerably more selectivity in your sources. Just because someone is on youtube is not a good reason to take his opinions seriously.

    BRO, varg was just the first CONSPIRACY THEORIST that i found out there, i chose him as an example for my thread proposition over others, because he is the one that is more shocking in his points, and so easier to remember, so i would have more probability of dragging into a possible conversation, if i ever opened the thread, people that even thinks like him, just to create a debate that would include the widest spectrum of points of view in that matter, don't even take me for a vargtard, cmon, PACENTA POWER!! hahahaa, that's ridicoulos.

  9. #84
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    23-05-21
    Posts
    45


    Country: Spain



    Quote Originally Posted by Punish Them 911 View Post
    Interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans was sex biased, with Neanderthal male+sapiens female pairings being the predominant coupling that produced modern non-Africans. Modern human mtDNA lineages are also present in Neanderthal fossils -- so far no modern human Y-DNA in Neanderthals or mtDNA in modern humans.
    If there are Neanderthal mt lineages in modern humans, that means Neanderthal WOMEN were the ones passing their genes...
    Moreover, we know that when one population subjugates other nobody gives power to their men(the violent defenders of their people), let alone have children. It has been this way in each and every conquest.

  10. #85
    Regular Member firetown's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-08-11
    Posts
    501


    Country: USA - California



    Attachment 12866

    Thus, a Neanderthal mother with partial RhD, Rhc, and Rhe phenotypes and sometimes RH:-18, carrying a Denisovan foetus expressing complete forms of RhD, Rhc and Rhe antigens and expressing the RH18 antigen, would have been prone to be immune to missing epitopes and synthesize anti-RhD, anti-Rhc, anti-Rhe and even anti-RH18 antibodies.
    It is important to differentiate weak D (due to a quantitative difference in the D antigen) from partial D (due to a qualitative difference in the D antigen). Simply put, the weak D phenotype is due to a reduced number of D antigens on a red blood cell. In contrast, the partial D phenotype is due to an alteration in D-epitopes. Thus, in partial D, the number of D antigens is not reduced but the protein structure is altered. These individuals, if alloimmunized to D, can produce an anti-D antibody. Therefore, partial D patients who are donating blood should be labeled as D-positive but, if receiving blood, they should be labeled as D-negative and receive D-negative units.

    Blood groups of Neandertals and Denisova decrypted

    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-and-Rh-Factor

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...e.0254175.g003
    If you search this forum for "blood type", "rhesus negative" or "rh negative", you will probably see my posts.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •