Are Chimps Degenerate Humans?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Looks like another thing some creationists were right about...

Human hands may be more primitive than chimp's
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150714113043.htm

Where are the chimp fossils? We've found them, but they look more human than chimp to us.

All species fight with each other, territory, mates, whatever. But it had to intensify with effective weapons. A selection advantage to not look human to other humans.

[John Harshman]

On 7/20/15, 9:40 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Looks like another thing some creationists were right about...

There are certainly a few creationists who claimed what you say in your
title, but if you crow about anything any creationist has ever said, you
will be trumpeting a lot of mutually contradictory claims.

More importantly, the paper you cite at third hand says nothing to
support your silly claim.

> Human hands may be more primitive than chimp's
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150714113043.htm
>
> Where are the chimp fossils? We've found them, but they look more human than chimp to us.

Sorry, but phylogenetic analysis doesn't work that way. If they were
chimp fossils, they wouldn't show up where they do in analyses. It's
conceivable we've found the common ancestor of humans and chimps, though
we can never actually know. But we would expect humans to share some
primitive features with it not found in chimps, and we would expect
chimps to share some primitive features with it not found in humans.
Nothing new to see here.

> All species fight with each other, territory, mates, whatever. But it
> had to intensify with effective weapons. A selection advantage to not
> look human to other humans.

You shouldn't pontificate on subjects you don't understand.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Hey, if you are too stupid to look up the actual paper, it's not my problem. You have me confused with someone that gives a damn if you wallow in ignorance.

As a matter of fact, it's old news, plenty of other evidence, but then, you don't even know what a GENE is.

[John Harshman]

On 7/20/15, 1:16 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey, if you are too stupid to look up the actual paper, it's not my problem. You have me confused with someone that gives a damn if you wallow in ignorance.
>
> As a matter of fact, it's old news, plenty of other evidence, but then, you don't even know what a GENE is.

Agreed. That isn't your problem. Your problem is that you read something
and, having no idea what it means, make up a creationist story around it.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Well, I know if a critter has 100% the same GENES, it's the same species. Pretty exotic knowledge to you.

[A.Carlson]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:23:00 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Well, I know if a critter has 100% the same GENES, it's the same species. Pretty exotic knowledge to you.

Good god, are you still going on about some bogus gene comparison
regarding Neandertals?

Let me give you a clue - The following is a list of just a few of the
things we share with other great apes:

- We all share the same arrangements of internal organs
- We all share the same bones
- We all have opposable thumbs
- We all have body hair
- We all have placental pregnancies
- We all nurture our young in a societal structure for an
extended period of time.

Now, OF THE THINGS LISTED we share 100% of them. That of course does
not equate to us all being the same species. It shouldn't need to be
pointed out that a limited list of similarities does not automatically
equate to the conclusion that there is 100% similarity between two
entities.

So if you are still going on about Neanderthals perhaps you could
finally come out with a study that this still bogus claim is based on.

P.S. the study that you have referred to in the past relied on only a
specific selection of coding DNA and completely ignored regulatory
portions of DNA, hardly an insignificant fact, hence the portion of
the title of the original article published in the magazine Science of
"Targeted Investigation of the Neandertal Genome". Do you see the
word "Targeted" there? Are you aware of the meaning or significance
of that word in this particular context?

[William Morse]

Hoping to get past some of the fluff, I note that humans are bipedal,
while chimps are quadripedal. So one would expect to see changes in
chimp hands compared to human hands, at least assuming (as I do - with
some justification) that the last common ancestor was arboreal.

Most (all?) arboreal apes use bipedal locomotion on the rare occasions
when they walk on land. But gorillas and later chimps switched to
quadripedal locomotion.One would expect this to result in changes to
their hands, and this seems to be the case. Humans retained bipedal
locomotion, with rather interesting results.

[John Harshman]

On 7/20/15, 5:23 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, I know if a critter has 100% the same GENES, it's the same species. Pretty exotic knowledge to you.
>

I don't think you even know what your claim means. Do you mean that
every gene in one critter has a homolog in the other, or that every gene
in one critter has an identical sequence in the other, or that every
gene in one critter is translated into an identical protein in the other?

Doesn't matter, because there are plenty of different species that
satisfy the first and third, and the second is generally variable within
species.

[passer...@gmail.com]

In the case of Europeans/Han and Neanderthals, it means you can create near 100% of the GENES of any Neanderthal with the genes of 50 Europeans/Han Chinese. 500 for sure. It's in that original paper on Neanderthal nuclear DNA you are totally oblivious to.

You can't create more than about 92% of the GENES of a typical Australian with the GENES of a million Africans.

You can't create more than 25% of any human with the GENES of a million chimps, and vice versa.

Not complicated, even a forum atheist can grasp it.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Existing humans and Neanderthals, not humans and chimps.

Europeans/Han Chinese share close to 100% the same GENES as Neanderthal.

Chimps share about 25% of their GENES with any human.

About the most distant humans we know of so far is Australians and Africans who only share about 92% of their GENES.

[passer...@gmail.com]

There's been lots of evidence for decades that humans are the older form, not chimps, that chimps are the new thing.

Big news in this forum though.

[passer...@gmail.com]

(P.S. It's the proteins they measured so yes, the proteins are 100% the same. It's all in that most famous and important paper in the history of human evolution that you are totally oblivious to, and determined to stay in that condition.)

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 1:15:26 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

[A.Carlson]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:29:03 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Existing humans and Neanderthals, not humans and chimps.

Yes, that is what I ultimately referring to as can so clearly be
ascertained by the last paragraph that makes very pertinent points
that you repeatedly choose to ignore here.

The portion comparing great apes to humans was to illustrate how by
being selective in what you are comparing you can come up with pretty
much any bogus conclusion. When you follow that up with comparing
apples to oranges you only make things worse.

>Europeans/Han Chinese share close to 100% the same GENES as Neanderthal.

Based on comparing what exactly? It isn't as though you have been
very forthcoming where you are getting this garbage.

>Chimps share about 25% of their GENES with any human.

would that be by comparing the same part of the genome in the same
manner as how you are comparing "Europeans/Han Chinese" with
Neanderthal? I don't think so.

>About the most distant humans we know of so far is Australians and
>Africans who only share about 92% of their GENES.

But not by using the same means of measurement. If that isn't the
case (and everything that I am aware of cornering various methods of
DNA comparisons indicate that it isn't) then cite your sources.

Also it is quite possible to have Australians (Aboriginal of course)
and Africans be quite close to Europeans, genetically speaking, and
yet still be farther removed from Neandertals even when using the same
methods of measuring, which you clearly are not doing here. The devil
is in the details, which is perhaps why you do not choose to be
forthcoming regarding your sources.

The chimps coming in at a paltry 25% while the Australians
(aboriginal) and Africans coming in at a very surprising 92% is a dead
giveaway especially in context of your utterly ridiculous comparison
with Neanderthal.

It is pretty clear that you have little clue about how the genome of
various species and races are typically compared and contrasted - that
is unless you are being deliberately deceptive.

[solar penguin]

When you say "humans" and "chimps" are you referring to the modern
species only, or to each genus in general?

[A.Carlson]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:25:37 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>In the case of Europeans/Han and Neanderthals, it means you can create
>near 100% of the GENES of any Neanderthal with the genes of 50
>Europeans/Han Chinese. 500 for sure. It's in that original paper on
>Neanderthal nuclear DNA you are totally oblivious to.

Let's see what you are missing:

1) How genes are expressed is also a key element in what makes
us human. IOW it isn't just about the genes themselves
2) The claim that 100% of Neandertal genes can be recovered from even
500 "Europeans/Han Chinese IS PATANTLY FALSE! If you think not
then CITE YOUR SOURCE!

P.S. Just because your average modern European may have around 2% of
their DNA matching with known Neandertal specimens doesn't
automatically mean that if you get together 50 people you will
therefore end up with 100% of Neandertal DNA. It just doesn't work
that way. A significant amount of those 2% samples are the same 2%
over and over.

If you're not really just pulling this out your own ass then cite your
source. (It isn't in the one you are referring to here)

>You can't create more than about 92% of the GENES of a typical
>Australian with the GENES of a million Africans.

3) Again, patently false. Given that there is a significantly
smaller difference among ALL MODERN HUMANS this
claim makes no sense whatsoever. (Care to cite your
source?)

>You can't create more than 25% of any human with the GENES of a
>million chimps, and vice versa.

4) And yet it is generally held that the rate of shared genes is
around 95-97%, depending on various considerations.

>Not complicated, even a forum atheist can grasp it.

Who would even want to "grasp" your collection of untruths?

[Ernest Major]

On 21/07/2015 07:38, A.Carlson wrote:
>> You can't create more than about 92% of the GENES of a typical
>> >Australian with the GENES of a million Africans.
> 3) Again, patently false. Given that there is a significantly
> smaller difference among ALL MODERN HUMANS this
> claim makes no sense whatsoever. (Care to cite your
> source?)
>

He would argue that Australians have Neanderthal and Denisovan "genes",
and Africans lack these, so you can't construct a full Australian genome
from a selection of African genomes.

He exagerrates the difference by ignoring the assymetry in the situation
- you could "construct an African genome" from a much smaller number of
Australians. And you could "construct" the 92% (that number looks
suspiciously low) with a much smaller number of Africans.

His assumption that Neanderthal and Denisovan genes are absolutely
absent from Africans is also likely false.

And he's equivocating on the meaning of gene again - the typical allele
at nearly every locus in an Australian is of African origins. (There's a
few Neanderthal alleles occurring at over 50% in Eurasian populations,
so it's likely that the same is true for Australians.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

There's evidence that chimpanzees are more derived (in some ways) than
humans. That doesn't (shades of Lamarck) make humans the older form.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 1:15:26 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 7/20/15, 5:23 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

On 7/20/15, 10:25 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Well, I know if a critter has 100% the same GENES, it's the same species. Pretty exotic knowledge to you.
>>>
>> I don't think you even know what your claim means. Do you mean that
>> every gene in one critter has a homolog in the other, or that every gene
>> in one critter has an identical sequence in the other, or that every
>> gene in one critter is translated into an identical protein in the other?
>>
>> Doesn't matter, because there are plenty of different species that
>> satisfy the first and third, and the second is generally variable within
>> species.
>

> In the case of Europeans/Han and Neanderthals, it means you can create near 100% of the GENES of any Neanderthal with the genes of 50 Europeans/Han Chinese. 500 for sure. It's in that original paper on Neanderthal nuclear DNA you are totally oblivious to.
>
> You can't create more than about 92% of the GENES of a typical Australian with the GENES of a million Africans.
>
> You can't create more than 25% of any human with the GENES of a million chimps, and vice versa.
>
> Not complicated, even a forum atheist can grasp it.

I see you didn't answer the question, and you didn't provide your
sources. I don't think you even know what you're claiming here.

Here's another question: why do you always put "genes" in all caps?

[John Harshman]

On 7/20/15, 10:41 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 1:15:26 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 7/20/15, 5:23 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Well, I know if a critter has 100% the same GENES, it's the same species. Pretty exotic knowledge to you.
>>>
>> I don't think you even know what your claim means. Do you mean that
>> every gene in one critter has a homolog in the other, or that every gene
>> in one critter has an identical sequence in the other, or that every
>> gene in one critter is translated into an identical protein in the other?
>>
>> Doesn't matter, because there are plenty of different species that
>> satisfy the first and third, and the second is generally variable within
>> species.
>
> (P.S. It's the proteins they measured so yes, the proteins are 100%
> the same. It's all in that most famous and important paper in the
> history of human evolution that you are totally oblivious to, and
> determined to stay in that condition.)

Proteins aren't genes, so it turns out to be true that you didn't know
what you were claiming.

I don't believe your clarified claim is true. It's true that
non-Africans have as much as 5% neandertal-related DNA; I don't recall
anything about proteins. And it's true that only about 30% of chimp
proteins are identical in sequence to the homologous human proteins. But
I have no idea where you get the rest of it, and, I suspect, neither do you.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <A8ednYyiZMJ82zPI...@giganews.com>

The way that he using it, it's an acronym:

Generally
Extemporaneous
Numerological
Excretion

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[John Stockwell]

More evidence that chimps and humans share common ancestry, Kurt.

John

[John Vreeland]

Which is older, your left hand or your right?
__
Church of the FSM: "I believe _because_ it is ridiculous."

[jillery]

Excreting round numerals isn't so bad, like 8 and 0. What hurts is
excreting pointy numerals, like 4 and 7. And don't even get me
started on Roman numerals.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:27:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "A.Carlson"
<a...@serv2.dca1.giganews.com>:

That would be a "no"; meaning, significance and context are
all mysteries to him.

But the real question is, after all the evidence that
pisserby isn't interested in any sort of actual discussion,
why respond to him at all? "It's for the lurkers" can only
be expected to go just so far...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[A.Carlson]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:01:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

That, and it is good exercise and I also learn a little as I go along.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:09:17 -0700, the following appeared

As do I (more than a little in some cases, but from the
rational responses to pisserby, not to his rants), with the
added advantage that I gain practice in controlling my
natural tendencies toward less-than-charitable responses
when I read his posts. So I guess if others want to respond,
and have the intestinal fortitude to do so, it's to my
benefit.

[solar penguin]

Thanks. I know that's what science says. I was just curious about what
pisserby's alternative was. But, once again, he doesn't seem to be
interested in actually explaining his position in any kind of detail.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Why do you pretend you are replying to me? Your time must not be worth much.

[passer...@gmail.com]

All known existing humans and all known existing chimps share approximately 25% of their GENES and Neanderthal and Europeans 100% of their GENES. That's what the lead author of that original Neanderthal Nuclear DNA paper, everyone here is oblivious to, said.

Now, since Neanderthal has identical GENES as Europeans, it logically follows that they have 25% in common with chimps too, but the lead author of the most important human evolution paper in history didn't say that. I guess he thought it would be obvious, or not important.

[passer...@gmail.com]

There's only one meaning for a GENE. I'd start with pea-plants and work your way up. I use the word the same way the author of the original Neanderthal GENE/protein paper, the most important one in history, the one you are totally oblivous to, uses the word.

It may be your personal religious faith that Africans have those GENES absent in Africans and present in Europeans/Han, but it's not science. And that 3% totally absent in Africans is NOT all the GENES Europeans/Han get from Neanderthal, it's just the ones totally absent in Africans.

Yes, you can make an Africans from Australians, probably, but it's religious faith again that it would take less than the 50-500 existing Humans it takes to create the GENES of any Neanderthal.

[passer...@gmail.com]

I've produced the source 100 times for you on this forum, downbreed, and you know it. Literally 100 times. Deliberately acting stupid.

It's the most famous, important paper in the history of human evolution. The first sequencing of the Neanderthal DNA.

And yes, your ignorance is permanent, there's nothing that can be done for it.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Yeah, you know better about us being "identical on the level of the proteins and the genes that encode them" than the lead author of the most important paper in human evolution history. He has no clue they aren't related. You know better because it was beamed into your tinfoil hat from the spaceship behind the meteor.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Don't respond, pinhead. Get lost. Let's totally ignore each other. Trust me, I have no clue who you are, just another monkey. A zero.

[passer...@gmail.com]

In case any Christians are wandering by, and want a good laugh at the downbreed deliberately acting stupid, here's it's medicine....

"The astonishing implication...is that we are incredibly similar to Neandertals at the level of the proteome, which is the full set of proteins that our genes encode."

..."The overwhelming majority of chimp proteins -- about 75% -- are different from ours in at least one amino-acid 'letter," according to Hannon.

------------------

Neandertals 'Hardly Differed at All' from Modern Humans

ScienceDaily (May 6, 2010) -- How much do we, who are alive today, differ from our most recent evolutionary ancestors, the cave-dwelling Neandertals, hominids who lived in Europe and parts of Asia and went extinct about 30,000 years ago? And how much do Neandertals, in turn, have in common with the ape-ancestors from which we are both descended, the chimpanzees?

Although we are both hominids, the fossil record told us long ago that we differ physically from Neandertals, in various ways. But at the level of genes and the proteins that they encode, new research published online May 6 in the journal Science reveals that we differ hardly at all. It also indicates that we both -- Neandertals and modern humans -- differ from the chimps in virtually identical ways.

"The astonishing implication of the work we've just published," says Prof. Gregory Hannon, Ph.D., of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), "is that we are incredibly similar to Neandertals at the level of the proteome, which is the full set of proteins that our genes encode."

..."The overwhelming majority of chimp proteins -- about 75% -- are different from ours in at least one amino-acid 'letter," according to Hannon. These amino-acid changes are in most instances slight, but the resulting functional differences -- the way they affect what proteins do in cells -- can be great, and presumably help to explain many of our differences from chimpanzees.

Eighty-eight amino-acid differences -- and what they might signify

Hannon's team applied its focused sequencing method on those areas in the Neandertal sample obtained from Dr. Pääbo, and, after several rounds of refinement, they arrived at the number 88: they found only 88 changes in Neandertal protein sequences compared with the modern human. Hannon calls this number "astonishing."

At an early stage of the study, the team identified many more protein differences -- about 1000 -- between modern man and the specific Neandertal individual sampled, a male who died about 49,000 years ago in a cave called El Sidrón, in Spain. But that initial figure was based on comparing the Neandertal sequence to that of the modern human reference genome. When the teams incorporated into their calculations variations in the modern human code that they catalogued in 50 individuals from a range of modern ethnic groups, the number of human-Neandertal protein differences dropped from over 1000 to only 88.

Although Hannon says it will be important to study the functional role of the 88 proteins, he expects that many may prove "neutral," functionally. These would be changes in the genetic code that do not issue in any difference in the function of the associated proteins. If even more human genome samples -- say, from 500 contemporary individuals rather than 50 -- were included in the comparison, the number of differences might drop again, Hannon believes. And if additional Neandertal samples were factored into the comparison, he says, "it's possible that that the number of differences could approach zero."

In short, Hannon says, "the news, so far, is not about how we differ from Neandertals, but how we are so nearly identical.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100506141559.htm

The Actual DNA Studies That Changed Everything (Optional Reading):

These are difficult reading, but I have slogged through them, and if anyone else does, I'll be happy to discuss it. But optional reading. You can't get to them normally, and these can't be used for commercial purposes...

The DNA paper... http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full.html

The Accompanying Gene/Protein Paper...http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/723.abstract

Appendix...http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2010/05/05/328.5979.723.DC1/Burbano.SOM.pdf

[passer...@gmail.com]

Now, I've produced those for the downbreed here 100 times, literally. It's the downbreed's stupid little game to work me, easy to demand the sources I already produced and the downbreed has gotten it's nose rubbed in repeatedly, takes longer to go fetch it and post it. All to be ignored until the downbreed can demand I produce them again.

Easy to see how it got so stinking ignorant.

[John Harshman]

What paper is that, and was that actually a quote from it?

[John Harshman]

Hey, you said 100%, and now there are 88 differences. How do you
reconcile those conflicting claims?

[John Harshman]

Why do you never answer questions?

[Earle Jones27]

*
I realize that you cannot respond to "segmented posts" like the rest of
us, but you were recently asked (by John Harshman, I belive), "Why
don't you ever answer questions?"

earle
*
(Top-Posted to get your attention.)

On 2015-07-25 02:30:33 +0000, passer...@gmail.com said:

> Yeah, you know better about us being "identical on the level of the
> proteins and the genes that encode them" than the lead author of the
> most important paper in human evolution history. He has no clue they
> aren't related. You know better because it was beamed into your tinfoil
> hat from the spaceship behind the meteor.

*

[Sneaky O. Possum]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:B7OdnVg2mvqGnC7I...@giganews.com:

I expect it's for the same reason that you always pose questions to
someone who never answers them: obstinacy.
--
S.O.P.

[solar penguin]

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 3:15:13 AM UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> All known existing humans and all known existing chimps share approximately
> 25% of their GENES and Neanderthal and Europeans 100% of their GENES.
> That's what the lead author of that original Neanderthal Nuclear DNA paper,
> everyone here is oblivious to, said.
>
> Now, since Neanderthal has identical GENES as Europeans, it logically
> follows that they have 25% in common with chimps too, but the lead author
> of the most important human evolution paper in history didn't say that. I
> guess he thought it would be obvious, or not important.
>

If you read my question - quoted below - you'll see that it wasn't about
Neanderthals or genes (or even GENES). I know you have trouble reading
"segmented posts", but I didn't know you also had trouble with unsegmented
ones too.

So I'll try again, and I'll make it easy to help you this time.

When you said, "humans are the older form, not chimps," did you mean...

1) that the human genus Homo is older than the chimpanzee genus Pan?

2) that Homo sapiens sapiens is older the the current chimp species Pan
troglodytes?

3) both of the above?

or

4) something else?

Just answer 1, 2, 3 or 4.

Thanks.

[passer...@gmail.com]

What question, pinhead?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Too complicated huh? Sure, I'll help.

That 88 differences meaning closer than 99.5% the same GENES is what you get when you sample 50 existing humans taken at random. If you sampled 500 existing humans it would be 0. (Not to mention those 88 probably do nothing.)

So, to make a perfect GENEtic clone of ANY Neanderthal, you need between 50 and 500 existing humans.

And 1,000,000 Africans can't make more than about 92% of the GENES of Australians.

[passer...@gmail.com]

The downbreed acts stupid, asks the same question for the 1000th time, and the other pinheads complain if I don't tediously answer it again.

The most famous and important paper in the history of human origins. The first sequencing of the Neanderthal nuclear DNA.

What a bunch of monkeys.

[passer...@gmail.com]

You pinheads don't even know what a species is, much less genus. There's actually a scientific testable definition of species, the ability to have viable children, but you don't even get that. Who knows what you consider a "genus". Not doubt pure superstition fantasyland.

1. I don't think the term genus used by you has any scientific meaning. It can't be tested by experiment. That's what real scientists do, test things with experiments.

2. Your Question is wrong, there is no homo sapiens sapiens as you use the term. Neanderthal shares 100% of their GENES with Europeans, if they are a sub-species, what are Australians and Africans sharing 92% of their GENES in your superstitious fantasyland? A different genus?

You're welcome.

[John Harshman]

How do you know this?

> So, to make a perfect GENEtic clone of ANY Neanderthal, you need between 50 and 500 existing humans.

No, that doesn't follow. You are looking at comparisons of proteins and
inferring identity of DNA sequence. You should realize that you can't do
that. A third of all coding sequence differences are silent, and 98% of
the genome isn't protein-coding anyway.

> And 1,000,000 Africans can't make more than about 92% of the GENES of Australians.
>

What is your source for that assertion? And again, why do you
obsessively capitalize "genes"?

[John Harshman]

On 7/28/15, 5:47 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

No, sorry. From the paper you cite: "We found 78 nucleotide
substitutions that change the protein-coding capacity of genes where
modern humans are fixed for a derived state and where Neandertals carry
the ancestral (chimpanzee-like) state."

Note: modern humans are fixed; no variation for those substitutions
within modern humans, and that counts Africans too. Additional sampling
will not change anything.

> So, to make a perfect GENEtic clone of ANY Neanderthal, you need between 50 and 500 existing humans.

You are confused. You confuse genes with genomes and proteins, all of
which are different. You confuse fixed characters with polymorphisms.
And you seem to confuse the word "gene" with some all-caps acronym you
may have made up.

> And 1,000,000 Africans can't make more than about 92% of the GENES of Australians.

Again, where do you get that interesting assertion?

[John Harshman]

> You pinheads don't even know what a species is, much less genus.
> There's actually a scientific testable definition of species, the
> ability to have viable children, but you don't even get that. Who
> knows what you consider a "genus". Not doubt pure superstition
> fantasyland.

Under that criterion, there is only one species of duck, rather than
150. Does that bother you at all?

> 1. I don't think the term genus used by you has any scientific
> meaning. It can't be tested by experiment. That's what real
> scientists do, test things with experiments.

Correct. The term has no scientific meaning. It's merely a convenient
label for a collection of related species. Then again, any given
collection of related species is a real group whether we call it a genus
or not, so while the word "genus" has no meaning, the groups for which
the term is used do. So the question, which again you manage to avoid
answering, is perfectly legitimate. What did you mean by "humans are the
older form, not chimps"? All you have presented evidence for is that
some features of human hands are primitive relative to the same features
in chimps. Are we to judge by hands alone?

> 2. Your Question is wrong, there is no homo sapiens sapiens as you
> use the term. Neanderthal shares 100% of their GENES with Europeans,
> if they are a sub-species, what are Australians and Africans sharing
> 92% of their GENES in your superstitious fantasyland? A different
> genus?

Why do you always put "genes" in all caps? Is that some kind of
religious ritual for you?

Where do you get this 92% from? I don't thin it's in the most important
scientific paper in history, is it?

> You're welcome.

Nobody thanked you. You continue not to answer questions.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Well, you build up the intellectual courage to reply to me, let me know.

No loss, asking for the link to the most important paper in human origins for the 1001th time doesnn't add much to the pursuit of truth.

[John Harshman]

On 7/28/15, 10:29 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, you build up the intellectual courage to reply to me, let me know.
>
> No loss, asking for the link to the most important paper in human origins for the 1001th time doesnn't add much to the pursuit of truth.

The problem is that the claims you're making do not appear in that
paper, so you must have some other source. Either that or you're
misreading the paper.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Sure they do, but you are eternally too stupid to read the damn thing.

[John Harshman]

I read it. Please tell me the exact page and, preferably, the line on
which each claim appears. I can't find them. I find things that might be
misinterpreted to mean what you say, but I can't be sure that's it.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Oh, I see, the downbreed thinks it knows better what's in the paper than the lead author of the paper, saying it in plain English that even a downbreed can understand.

No, you're just a downbreed, the lead author of the paper knows better what the paper says than you do.

I could, of course, locate the facts in the paper, showing that the lead authoer of the paper knows what is in the paper better than a downbreed, but monkey brain here is just trying to waste my time, it is eternally too stupid to understand what the paper says.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Downbreed here is eternally mystified by the lead author's simple English explanation, and has been proven incapable of elementary algebra and the math of the paper is very difficult.

But if someone here intellectually capable of it wanted to wade into the math/logic of the papers, I'm game. When I've read through them, I've had to take their word for the math. However, unlike Tattersall, who admitted the condition is permanent, I could probably puzzle it out. Granted, the core ideas can be understood with an overview idea of what they are doing with the math, following the logic of it. How the nursed out the Neanderthal DNA by using existing human DNA etc.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Devil's Advocate:

"Yes, it's downbreed nonsense to question the lead author of the paper saying what's in the paper, but there are sound logical arguments that the paper got it wrong. To begin with, they extracted the Neanderthal DNA from bacteria etc. DNA by testing for similarity to existing human DNA. What about sections of the Neanderthal DNA that didn't have enough similarities to show up? Seems that's selecting for similar DNA, by definition."

:End of Devil's Advocate

The 50 top scientists on the planet authors of the papers did of course consider that, but at least it's not inane drivel, like the lead author of the paper, doesn't know what's in it.

[John Harshman]

On 8/1/15, 8:27 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oh, I see, the downbreed thinks it knows better what's in the paper than the lead author of the paper, saying it in plain English that even a downbreed can understand.
>
> No, you're just a downbreed, the lead author of the paper knows better what the paper says than you do.
>
> I could, of course, locate the facts in the paper, showing that the lead authoer of the paper knows what is in the paper better than a downbreed, but monkey brain here is just trying to waste my time, it is eternally too stupid to understand what the paper says.
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 11:09:48 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/1/15, 7:46 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Sure they do, but you are eternally too stupid to read the damn thing.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/15, 10:29 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Well, you build up the intellectual courage to reply to me, let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> No loss, asking for the link to the most important paper in human origins for the 1001th time doesnn't add much to the pursuit of truth.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that the claims you're making do not appear in that
>>>> paper, so you must have some other source. Either that or you're
>>>> misreading the paper.
>>>
>> I read it. Please tell me the exact page and, preferably, the line on
>> which each claim appears. I can't find them. I find things that might be
>> misinterpreted to mean what you say, but I can't be sure that's it.
>
>

I see you are incapable of doing as I requested. That doesn't look good
for you. What exactly does "downbreed" mean? I like to know just how I'm
being insulted.

[passer...@gmail.com]

And back to the original post,

Fact #1:
There are no Chimp/Bonobo/Gorilla fossils.

Fact #2:
There are an entire zoo of human and pre-human fossils. More ape-men than you can shake a stick at, all kinds of branches it seems.

Now, why is that? Zero, vs. a wide variety from all over the planet?

There's been evidence all along that chimps are the new form, this recent news is just more of it. Time to ask if some of those ape-men we found are the fossils of the chimps.

[passer...@gmail.com]

You act like a downbreed, you get treated like a downbreed. No one is as stupid as you, it's deliberate.

[passer...@gmail.com]

You don't believe the lead author of the paper saying what's in the paper, downbreed. You know better than the 50 top human evolution scientists on the planet.

And yet, you can't do elementary algebra.

Forum atheists, in a class of their own.

[John Harshman]

Actually, there are a couple of chimp fossils. The reason there aren't
many is that they live in an environment that makes preservation
unlikely. Of course chimps and humans are both "the new form". Neither
is the same as their common ancestor.

[solar penguin]

Ah. Right. That _finally_ answers my question. Your claim is that
the earliest hominid species is older than the modern chimp species.

That's a pretty obvious statement. I'm sure what you think it proves...

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:j4Gdnck7tYj-uyPI...@giganews.com...

I found this, a couple alleged chimp teeth from east of the Rift, supposedly 500K years old.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/news050829-10.html


Wiki reports: "Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa are separate from the major human fossil sites in East Africa; however, chimpanzee fossils have been reported from Kenya, indicating that both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee#Fossils
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04008.html

You said a couple fossils have been found, intimated that chimps lived in an environment ill suited to preservation, and that the chimps were not the same as extant chimps. Got references?

[passer...@gmail.com]

A couple teeth, from only a half million years ago. No ape-men dead ends left a half million years ago. Some Australian genes come from an ancestor that branched over a million years ago.

We split over 5 millions years ago, and if more human-like in the past, you would expect chimp like traits 500,000 years ago, and not 2-5 million years ago. Which matches the fossil record, if some of those humans found all over the planet in all kinds of environments are actually chimp fossils.

[passer...@gmail.com]

No, that's what the Strawman said. What I said is much harder to deal with.

[passer...@gmail.com]

It's all old news, it's just brand new to forum atheists that don't know what a GENE is or that we sequenced the Neanderthal GENES...

Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis
Some members of the hominid family may actually come from apes.

By Bruce Bower, Science News

The African primate known as Ardi and a couple of other fossil creatures widely regarded as early members of the human evolutionary family--or hominids, for short--may really be apes hiding in plain sight, two anthropologists say.

Hominid-like traits such as an upright stance and small canine teeth may have evolved independently in some previously excavated ancient apes, raising the possibility that alleged early hominids have been mislabeled, say Bernard Wood of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and Terry Harrison of New York University.

Researchers have assigned African fossils dating to between 4 million and 7 million years ago to three groups of early hominids--Ardipithecus, Orrorin and Sahelanthropus--and have suggested that these lineages evolved into later hominids. But any of the fossils used to build this argument could just as easily represent now-extinct apes or hominids from dead-end lines, the researchers conclude in the Feb. 17 Nature. Fossil finders have largely failed to acknowledge this classification conundrum, they assert.

Wood and Harrison's recommendation challenges excavators' standard practice of assigning a single evolutionary identity to new finds, based on comparisons with fossil and living creatures, without citing other possibilities.

The current debate in no way challenges the widely accepted notion that both the first hominids and ancestors of chimpanzees evolved from a common ape ancestor. But scientific opinions vary sharply on what that ancestor must have looked like.

"Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially, 'This fossil is an early hominid, so suck it up and accept it,'" Wood says. "Nature and Science could change this practice overnight if they wanted to."...

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/17/human-ancestors-have-identity-crisis

Duuuuh.

[John Harshman]

On 8/5/15, 4:28 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> A couple teeth, from only a half million years ago. No ape-men dead
> ends left a half million years ago. Some Australian genes come from
> an ancestor that branched over a million years ago.

> We split over 5 millions years ago, and if more human-like in the
> past, you would expect chimp like traits 500,000 years ago, and not
> 2-5 million years ago. Which matches the fossil record, if some of
> those humans found all over the planet in all kinds of environments
> are actually chimp fossils.

Your view of evolution is touchingly naive. The common human-chimp
ancestor would be expected to have some traits found in both chimps and
humans, some that humans have lost and chimps have kept, some humans
have kept and chimps have lost, and possibly some lost in both modern
taxa. You can figure out which traits are primitive and which derived by
comparing them with gorillas, orangutans, and other primates.

[John Harshman]

On 8/5/15, 4:42 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's all old news, it's just brand new to forum atheists that don't know what a GENE is or that we sequenced the Neanderthal GENES...

Again, I'm curious why you feel the need to always capitalize "GENE".
Could you tell me?

You really shouldn't refer to secondary sources like that. It's the
character analysis that counts. What's the real publication?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Because forum atheists like you don't know the key role GENES play in GENEtics.

[John Harshman]

On 8/5/15, 6:49 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Because forum atheists like you don't know the key role GENES play in GENEtics.

So it's a graphical tic, then? What is the key role GENES play in GENEtics?

[passer...@gmail.com]

I recommend getting some pea plants and experimenting. You might find something on-line about GENES and pea plants to help you.

[A.Carlson]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:42:38 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>It's all old news, it's just brand new to forum atheists that don't
>know what a GENE is or that we sequenced the Neanderthal GENES...

Are you under the delusion that Neandertal genes were sequenced by
creationists?

BTW, are you aware of the fact that the preliminary results of the
sequencing showed that "Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to
modern human DNA, versus, for example, 98.8 percent for modern humans
and chimps"? Now how does that square with your oft' repeated but
never backed up claim that the difference between modern humans and
chimps is significantly lower than that?

"There's no place for religion in scientific conversation."
- Svante Paabo, head of the Neanderthal
genome project at the Max Planck
Institute

>Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis
>Some members of the hominid family may actually come from apes.
>
>By Bruce Bower, Science News
>
>The African primate known as Ardi and a couple of other fossil
>creatures widely regarded as early members of the human evolutionary
>family--or hominids, for short--may really be apes hiding in plain
>sight, two anthropologists say.

The family Hominidae (AKA great apes) includes orangutans, gorillas,
chimpanzees, and of course us humans. the super family Hominoidea (AKA
apes) broadens this a bit to include various species of gibbons.

Perhaps some overly-enthusiastic paleontologists are misidentifying
what might be ancestors of Hominoids as hominids. It may very well be
a distinction with a difference, but not much of one. Yes they should
try their best to get things right but it isn't as though we are
fossil-rich along those particular lines.

>Hominid-like traits such as an upright stance and small canine teeth
>may have evolved independently in some previously excavated ancient
>apes, raising the possibility that alleged early hominids have been
>mislabeled, say Bernard Wood of George Washington University in
>Washington, D.C., and Terry Harrison of New York University.

In other words there is plenty of room for interpretation but that
isn't exactly the same thing as researchers taking license.
Regardless, healthy debate is good.

>Researchers have assigned African fossils dating to between 4 million
>and 7 million years ago to three groups of early
>hominids--Ardipithecus, Orrorin and Sahelanthropus--and have suggested
>that these lineages evolved into later hominids. But any of the
>fossils used to build this argument could just as easily represent
>now-extinct apes or hominids from dead-end lines, the researchers
>conclude in the Feb. 17 Nature. Fossil finders have largely failed to
>acknowledge this classification conundrum, they assert.

Yes, systematics can be quite complex and maybe there also is a bit of
a bias towards relating fossil finds to ancestors of modern humans.
Regardless, the more fossil finds the better.

>Wood and Harrison's recommendation challenges excavators' standard
>practice of assigning a single evolutionary identity to new finds,
>based on comparisons with fossil and living creatures, without citing
>other possibilities.

It sounds like he's just calling for things to be tightened up a bit.

>The current debate in no way challenges the widely accepted notion
>that both the first hominids and ancestors of chimpanzees evolved from
>a common ape ancestor. But scientific opinions vary sharply on what
>that ancestor must have looked like.

Or even, apparently, whether some ancestors of hominids should be
called hominids themselves, or more specifically, dead-end relatives
of such. An interesting question but hardly earth-shattering.

>"Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially,
>'This fossil is an early hominid, so suck it up and accept it,'" Wood
>says. "Nature and Science could change this practice overnight if they
>wanted to."...

Is there an actual larger point to this?

>http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/17/human-ancestors-have-identity-crisis
>
>Duuuuh.

Wow, only four years ago. Still searching for the source of your
(obviously bogus) claim that modern Europeans are more closely related
genetically to Neandertal than they are to Aboriginal Australians and
Africans by any chance? Sounds a wee bit racist if you ask me,
especially given the fact that your numbers for Africans and
Aboriginal Australians place them at a significantly lower percentage
than is typically given for even Chimpanzees.

[John Harshman]

Are you capable of carrying on any sort of serious discussion on any
subject?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Thanks for the perfect example that no one on this "evolution" forum knows what a GENE is. Chimp GENES are about 25% the same as all humans.

Big news, huh? You had no remote clue did you?

Here's a review for GENES

Europeans and Neanderthals, 99.9%+
Africans and Australians, 93%
Chimps and humans, 25%

I might as well be speaking Mandaean to marmots.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Not with the willfully permanently ignorant on this forum, that thinks human and chimp genes are 98% the same. Total fundamental ignorance.

And it's an evolution forum and virtutally everyone here is totally ignorant of the subject, you in particular. And determined to stay that way at all costs.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:41:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

>Thanks for the perfect example

And the same to you; perfect horrible examples are sometimes
quite instructive.

[John Harshman]

On 9/2/15, 7:41 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks for the perfect example that no one on this "evolution" forum knows what a GENE is. Chimp GENES are about 25% the same as all humans.
>
> Big news, huh? You had no remote clue did you?
>
> Here's a review for GENES
>
> Europeans and Neanderthals, 99.9%+
> Africans and Australians, 93%
> Chimps and humans, 25%
>

These numbers are all assaying different things. You can't compare them
directly like that.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 16:47:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Well, obviously he *can*, since he did. Whether his
comparison actually means anything, however... ;-)

[The Masked Lapavenger]

Any idea where he got that 93% figure from? If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say 100% minus an overinflated estimate of the Neanderthal and Denisovan contribution to non-African genomes. What do you think?

[John Harshman]

On 9/4/15, 11:41 AM, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> Any idea where he got that 93% figure from? If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say 100% minus an overinflated estimate of the Neanderthal and Denisovan contribution to non-African genomes. What do you think?
>

I for one have no idea. I've asked him many times and his only response
has been to call me a moron. He has never cited his source.

[The Masked Lapavenger]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 20:23:04 UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 16:47:35 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman

> <>:

>
> >On 9/2/15, 7:41 PM, passerby wrote:
> >> Thanks for the perfect example that no one on this "evolution" forum knows what a GENE is. Chimp GENES are about 25% the same as all humans.
> >>
> >> Big news, huh? You had no remote clue did you?
> >>
> >> Here's a review for GENES
> >>
> >> Europeans and Neanderthals, 99.9%+
> >> Africans and Australians, 93%
> >> Chimps and humans, 25%
> >>
> >
> >These numbers are all assaying different things. You can't compare them
> >directly like that.
>
> Well, obviously he *can*, since he did. Whether his
> comparison actually means anything, however... ;-)

The Space Shuttle Main Engine has a specific impulse of 366 seconds. The world record for a mile run is 252 seconds. Which is greater? :p

[RSNorman]

Muhammad Ali was The Greatest. Just being greater isn't good enough.

[Earle Jones27]

*
The current world record for the mile run is 223.13 seconds. (Hicham El
Guerrouj of Morocco.)

That is less than 252 (I think.)

Your 252 seconds is the world record for women (Svetlana Masterkova of Russia.)

More than you wanted to know.

earle
*

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:41:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by The Masked Lapavenger
<pierr...@gmail.com>:

>Any idea where he got that 93% figure from? If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say 100% minus an overinflated estimate of the Neanderthal and Denisovan contribution to non-African genomes. What do you think?

Take a sniff; I suspect the source will become clear.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:46:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by The Masked Lapavenger
<pierr...@gmail.com>:

Yep.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Oh, it'll never mean anything to you, that's a fact. It will eternally remain a mystery.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Nope, moron, they all refer to GENES, which you are totally stinking ignorant of. You have no clue what the numbers refer to, it involves math.

You can make virtually any Neanderthal, 100% or almost all their GENES, with the GENES of 50-500 Europeans. You can't make more than about 94% of the GENES of an Australian with 5,000,000 Africans.

Yeah, I know, too complicated.

[passer...@gmail.com]

It's been in all the papers for about 5 years now. Totally ignorant of it are you?

Europeans and to a large extent, Han Chinese are a mixture of Africans and Neanderthals. All three groups share close to 100% of their GENES. The Han Chinese have a trace of Denisovan too.

Africans share 97% of their GENES with Europeans, Neanderthal and Han Chinese.

Australians/Melanesians have a lot more Denisovan than the Han Chinese approximate 1%, and another group too, we might as well call Homo Erectus, since it branched over a million years ago. One can argue it's 94% but it's less than 50% the same as Africans.

All this is elementary and it's comical that those on an evolution forum are totally ignorant of all the nuclear DNA/GENE papers in the last 5 years. And it's easy to see how they stayed that ignorant, they cling to it at all costs.

[passer...@gmail.com]

I've produced them 1000 times. Liar.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Got million year old monkey fossils...

The million year old monkey: New evidence confirms the antiquity of fossil primate
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150904121350.htm

And a 2 million year old baboon fossil...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150819143639.htm

And of course, "human" fossils before and after.

But no ape fossils.

Just lots and lots of strange looking human like apes.

[The Masked Lapavenger]

On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 03:27:28 UTC+2, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's been in all the papers for about 5 years now. Totally ignorant of it are you?
>
> Europeans and to a large extent, Han Chinese are a mixture of Africans and Neanderthals. All three groups share close to 100% of their GENES. The Han Chinese have a trace of Denisovan too.
>
> Africans share 97% of their GENES with Europeans, Neanderthal and Han Chinese.
>
> Australians/Melanesians have a lot more Denisovan than the Han Chinese approximate 1%, and another group too, we might as well call Homo Erectus, since it branched over a million years ago. One can argue it's 94% but it's less than 50% the same as Africans.
>
> All this is elementary and it's comical that those on an evolution forum are totally ignorant of all the nuclear DNA/GENE papers in the last 5 years. And it's easy to see how they stayed that ignorant, they cling to it at all costs.

What makes you think I am ignorant of them? The very post you quoted shows I know about this.

[John Harshman]

On 9/16/15, 11:56 AM, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 03:27:28 UTC+2, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It's been in all the papers for about 5 years now. Totally ignorant of it are you?
>>
>> Europeans and to a large extent, Han Chinese are a mixture of Africans and Neanderthals. All three groups share close to 100% of their GENES. The Han Chinese have a trace of Denisovan too.
>>
>> Africans share 97% of their GENES with Europeans, Neanderthal and Han Chinese.
>>
>> Australians/Melanesians have a lot more Denisovan than the Han Chinese approximate 1%, and another group too, we might as well call Homo Erectus, since it branched over a million years ago. One can argue it's 94% but it's less than 50% the same as Africans.
>>
>> All this is elementary and it's comical that those on an evolution forum are totally ignorant of all the nuclear DNA/GENE papers in the last 5 years. And it's easy to see how they stayed that ignorant, they cling to it at all costs.
> What makes you think I am ignorant of them? The very post you quoted shows I know about this.

Accusing you of being ignorant is passerby's go-to response. It's no
more than a reflex, so don't be offended. He's pretty close to being a bot.

[The Masked Lapavenger]

On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 03:22:29 UTC+2, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Nope, moron, they all refer to GENES, which you are totally stinking ignorant of. You have no clue what the numbers refer to, it involves math.
>
> You can make virtually any Neanderthal, 100% or almost all their GENES, with the GENES of 50-500 Europeans. You can't make more than about 94% of the GENES of an Australian with 5,000,000 Africans.
>
> Yeah, I know, too complicated.
>
> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 7:53:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> > On 9/2/15, 7:41 PM, wrote:
> > > Thanks for the perfect example that no one on this "evolution" forum knows what a GENE is. Chimp GENES are about 25% the same as all humans.
> > >
> > > Big news, huh? You had no remote clue did you?
> > >
> > > Here's a review for GENES
> > >
> > > Europeans and Neanderthals, 99.9%+
> > > Africans and Australians, 93%
> > > Chimps and humans, 25%
> > >
> >
> > These numbers are all assaying different things. You can't compare them
> > directly like that.

I do not know of any gene found in Neanderthals but not in H. s. On the other hand, there are many cases of loci where two different *alleles* have become fixated in those two (sub)species. That's why you couldn't make a Neanderthal with any number of Europeans or other H. sapiens (without genetic modification). Because you're too busy sneering at people to specify what you mean by "GENES", your posts are barely intelligible. Your point is either blindingly obvious or mistaken, and no one can figure out which one it is unless you decide to stop being so sloppy with the terminology.

[The Masked Lapavenger]

On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 21:17:28 UTC+2, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/16/15, 11:56 AM, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 03:27:28 UTC+2, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> It's been in all the papers for about 5 years now. Totally ignorant of it are you?
> >>
> >> Europeans and to a large extent, Han Chinese are a mixture of Africans and Neanderthals. All three groups share close to 100% of their GENES. The Han Chinese have a trace of Denisovan too.
> >>
> >> Africans share 97% of their GENES with Europeans, Neanderthal and Han Chinese.
> >>
> >> Australians/Melanesians have a lot more Denisovan than the Han Chinese approximate 1%, and another group too, we might as well call Homo Erectus, since it branched over a million years ago. One can argue it's 94% but it's less than 50% the same as Africans.
> >>
> >> All this is elementary and it's comical that those on an evolution forum are totally ignorant of all the nuclear DNA/GENE papers in the last 5 years. And it's easy to see how they stayed that ignorant, they cling to it at all costs.
> > What makes you think I am ignorant of them? The very post you quoted shows I know about this.
>
> Accusing you of being ignorant is passerby's go-to response. It's no
> more than a reflex, so don't be offended. He's pretty close to being a bot.

I'll grant him one thing: I am completely ignorant of what the fuck he's going on about!

[John Harshman]

So is he.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Oh look, the moron is caught in a deliberate lie...

[passer...@gmail.com]

Forum atheists, on an evolution forum and totally and I mean TOTALLY ignorant of the most basic fact about human evolution.

With 50 modern humans chosen at random, you can, on average, recreate 99.7% at a MINIMUM, of the GENES of any random Neanderthal. The lead author of that most important GENEtic paper in human history, that you are totally ignorant of, says that the 0.3% probably don't do anything and if you used 500 random modern humans, you could probably match every single solitary GENE.

Too complicated?

Well of course it is, you are a forum atheist and it involves science.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Of course you are completely ignorant of what I'm talking about. It involves GENEtics and you don't have a remote clue what a GENE is.

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 08:43:40 -0800 (PST), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Of course you are completely ignorant of what I'm talking about. It involves GENEtics and you don't have a remote clue what a GENE is.

So what's the difference between a GENE and a protein?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Bless your heart for admitting your ignorance. I'd recommend googling "pea plants" "Genes" and "monk" for a basic explanation of what GENEs are. They determine how a DNA run creature works. The way they make it work, is proteins. Science used to say "one gene, one protein" where there was a one to one corresponcence, but it's not exactly one to one, but very close.

That's why the lead scientist of the most important genetics paper in all human history, when talking about how Neanderthal genes are identical to Europeans said,

"This work revealed that Neandertals hardly differ at all from modern humans, at the level of the proteins produced by their full set of genes -- a result researchers calls "astonishing."" [by memory, I've had to repeat it so many times for you morons]

Because if the proteins they measured are identical, that means the GENES are identical. And yes, I'm well aware you will stay ignorant of that scientific fact for all eternity, you embrace you ignorance, you wallow in it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:37:51 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

>... if the proteins they measured are identical, that means the GENES are identical

The references I found by Gurgling "genes" and "identical
proteins" seem to disagree, with different genes shown as
coding for identical proteins. The reverse *may* be true,
but that's a different issue.

But I'm sure you have a set of half-witty insults, with zero
content, ready for your usual "rebuttal", so feel free.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov