Re: Did humans and chimps once interbreed?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"NashtOn" <nana@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:Q1sbg.9970$A26.247374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windy wrote:
NashtOn wrote:

Windy wrote:

NashtOn wrote:

****************************************
Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzee
It seems that somebody just couldn't leave their chimp alone.
NashtOn, what are your thoughts about this?
It's in your genes you know.

My thoughts? I'll reserve judgment until I see some experimental
data.
When are they going to begin the experiment and which labs will
attempt
to duplicate the results?

Do you wish to volunteer?

I wish what I already asked and you conveniently chose to ignore
precisely that. So where is the experimental data?

That wasn't your question - you asked when the experiment was going to
begin.
Two possible answers:
1) The experiment was done millions of years ago. See the data
collected for the article above.

We're postulating as to what happened. To affirm a priori that it did
happen introduces an enormous bias.


No, the experiment *did* happen. Something clearly happened that lead
to the human and chimp genomes we now can observe. The interpretation
of the data is another thing.

The interpretation of any data without the benefit of direct
experimentation is just that, just an interpretation. there may be a
probability that it occurred, but whether it did or not is another
question.

Humans and chimps may not have interbred
in the way suggested, if the data can be better explained by different
effective population sizes of chromosomes. But no sensible scientists
doubts that chimps and humans share a recent common ancestor. Do you
feel that accepting reality introduces an enormous bias?

No, I feel that the bias has nothing to do with reality. What really
occurred, we'll never know, but given the atheist proclivities of the
scientists of the day, it is highly probable that an
atheist/materialist/naturalistic bias is built in to the dogma of
evolution.



Do you know anything about science, as it pertains to bias?


Yes. Remember the mitochondria and sexual reproduction discussions you
dropped?

When a discussion goes round in circles, why continue?
And I don't drop discussions. I try to answer every post that is
meaningful, especially when I initiate a thread, given time constraints.



2) If you don't accept such studies based on historical data where the
process itself can't be repeated, consider the following:
-Did the original peoples of North America come there from Siberia?
Where is the experimental data for that?

Why, current patterns of immigration, that's where.


Current immigration to North America is mostly from Siberia? This is
news.

No, current patterns of immigration the world over.



-Are mountain ranges the result of continental drift and collision?
Where is the continental supercollider to verify this result?

It's happening as we speak and can be measured. Microevolution or local
temporary adaptations also occur within species. We've already
established this tautology.


So in your view, microcontinental drift may lead to macrocontinental
drift, but microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution? Why the
difference?

If you don't know why by now, after a myriad of postings from my part,
what makes you think you'll understand this time?



-Was the Old Testament composed by Middle-Eastern people over two
thousand years ago? How might this experiment be duplicated?

Are you saying that biology is more of a historical description of life?
It can't be science, in that case.


Of course it can. Such historical processes can be scientifically
verified.

Sans the direct experimentation, it's not worth much.



-If a man is found dead with a knife in his back, is it possible to
find out who's responsible, without replicating the process in a
lab?

Yes, but it *can* be duplicated in a lab.


Really? A murder can be duplicated in a lab?

An organism can be destroyed and this can be repeated ad nauseam.



-- w.



--
Nicolas

"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Did humans and chimps once interbreed?
    ... Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzee ... It seems that somebody just couldn't leave their chimp alone. ... feel that accepting reality introduces an enormous bias? ... What really occurred, we'll never know, but given the atheist proclivities of the scientists of the day, it is highly probable that an atheist/materialist/naturalistic bias is built in to the dogma of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Bizarre experiments
    ... Since the 1980s, scientists have been especially interested in frogs, among ... other animals, because their skin produces antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). ... diseases in humans. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: New Detailed Chimp/Human DNA Analysis Clouds Split Scenarios
    ... Humans and chimpanzees may have split away from a common ancestor far ... The US investigation indicates the human and chimp lines split no more ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: New Detailed Chimp/Human DNA Analysis Clouds Split Scenarios
    ... Humans and chimpanzees may have split away from a common ancestor far ... The US investigation indicates the human and chimp lines split no more ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: New Detailed Chimp/Human DNA Analysis Clouds Split Scenarios
    ... Humans and chimpanzees may have split away from a common ancestor far ... The US investigation indicates the human and chimp lines split no more ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)