Why Evolutiontheory is just a theory and not an Evidence

[ozymandias]

You are just an arrogant douchebag too LOL

Knock off the personal attacks, please.

why don't you click on the link and see who actually says we share 5% DNA with neanderthals?

Looks like you did not read past the first paragraph. Your own link states : "The results showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to modern human DNA, versus, for example, 98.8 percent for modern humans and chimps, according to the study. (Related: "Neanderthals Had Same 'Language Gene' as Modern Humans.")"

Guess who was able to use a little basic science knowledge and prove you wrong, yet again? That's right -- me.

Yes...a scientist!

Just google it - Neanderthal DNA.

No need.

The evidence is all there.

Indeed it is. 99.7% the same, which is higher than the Great Apes, just as I , and science, predicted.

Why are you playing stupid?

Why are you proving my point, and then calling me stupid? Since when did education and critical thinking skills make a person stupid?

You took the first 2 paragraphs of an article, read nothing else, misrepresented what it said, claimed it proved something, that it doesn't, ignored what the article actually said, got caught in a lie about what the article actually said, and then claimed that the article proved the phylogenetic tree wrong, when the actual article states the exact opposite!

You deliberately misrepresent what anyone discussing things with you say, when you are not outright lying about what they say, you deliberately quote studies out of context, and then deliberately come to false conclusions. No wonder no one educated takes your claims seriously.

[Alchemist]

You are either extremely deceptive or extremely stupid.

The point is that neanderthals and humans interbred, therefore, they are of the same species, by definition.

You disagree with this statement?

[ozymandias]

You are either extremely deceptive or extremely stupid.

I am neither. What are you claiming I am being deceptive about, or stupid about?

The point is that neanderthals and humans interbred, therefore, they are of the same species, by definition.

Only by *your* definition, which, like pretty much everything you say, is scientifically inaccurate.

By *your* definition of a species, a horse and a donkey are the same species, which shows the absurdity of your claims.

You disagree with this statement?

Yes, because you are using a scientifically incorrect definition of 'species' to prove your point. Your definition is fine for basic, broad discussions, but now you are trying to use your flawed definition, and exploit it's flaws in an effort to prove some point. The only thing you have proven is your flaws in your definition.

[Alchemist]

I am neither. What are you claiming I am being deceptive about, or stupid about?

Only by *your* definition, which, like pretty much everything you say, is scientifically inaccurate.

By *your* definition of a species, a horse and a donkey are the same species, which shows the absurdity of your claims.



Yes, because you are using a scientifically incorrect definition of 'species' to prove your point. Your definition is fine for basic, broad discussions, but now you are trying to use your flawed definition, and exploit it's flaws in an effort to prove some point. The only thing you have proven is your flaws in your definition.

a horse and a donkey can't have viable offspring.



You are an idiot.

[Alchemist]

And the funny thing is that this fool is standing up to evidence presented by scientists that homo sapiens and neanderthals interbred, and had viable offspring.

So he is not disagreeing with me, but with the scientists and their research.

[ozymandias]

a horse and a donkey can't have viable offspring.

mule/myo͞ol/

Noun:

• The offspring of a donkey and a horse (strictly, a male donkey and a female horse), typically sterile and used as a beast of burden.

You are an idiot.

You may want to google 'mule' before making that claim.

Furthermore, your flawed definition of species never said anything about viability -- only that they could breed. As long as they can give a live birth, they breed. Even if you latch on to some trivia and twist this, and expand your definition, it still remains that I have just proven your definition wrong. Horses and donkeys are not the same species, and which contradicts your definition (if they can breed with each other they are the same species). Good thing scientists don't use your definition.

[Alchemist]

sterile ....


viable offspring....meaning it can have offspring of its own ...breed.
You can't breed a mule with a mule or with anything else. While homo sapians and neanderthals did.

idiot.

[Alchemist]

Different species which can't cross breed reproductively viable offspring anymore

i hope u can take ur pal's definition

[ozymandias]

And the funny thing is that this fool is standing up to evidence presented by scientists that homo sapiens and neanderthals interbred,

What fool? I have never stated that they did not interbreed, only that you are misrepresenting what the article stated -- and I was right.

and had viable offspring.

Obviously they did. What does this matter at all? Your definition of species says nothing about viability of offspring -- and there are many cases of viable hybrids. Your definition is that a species is anything that can breed -- and I have already shown how silly and incomplete that is by pointing out horses and donkeys interbreeding and having viable offspring. You are simply attempting to move the goal posts and change your metrics in the face of being proven wrong.

So he is not disagreeing with me, but with the scientists and their research.

It is you that disagree with the scientists. I agree and agreed with them all along. It is you that is rejecting all the scientific evidence for evolution -- including the video and article *YOU* provided.

[ozymandias]

sterile ....

But alive.

Adjective:

• Capable of working successfully; feasible: "the proposed investment was economically viable".

viable offspring....meaning it can have offspring of its own ...breed.

Viable and fertile are not the same thing. Even if you did say fertile, that would be silly and simplistic. Are sterile people a different species? No, even your revised definition is flawed.

You can't breed a mule with a mule or with anything else.

Actually, you can. Some mules are fertile.

While homo sapians and neanderthals did.

Indeed they did. What's your point?

idiot.

Immature. Could you please show some respect? It's hard to take you seriously when you act like a child.

[ozymandias]

i hope u can take ur pal's definition

It's still far too limited. Let's use the scientific definition, rather than one made up by a poster on some obscure, non-scientific forum on the internet, shall we?

[Alchemist]

Ok smart ass

so what is your definition of a species?

[ScimitarXEdge]

sterile ....


viable offspring....meaning it can have offspring of its own ...breed.
You can't breed a mule with a mule or with anything else. While homo sapians and neanderthals did.

idiot.

Not Quite


http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answ...ic.php?id=4054

Neandertals and our own species are both placed in the genus Homo. We have evidence that they overlapped in space and time but DNA and morphological evidence are against the idea of hybrids, with some exceptions involving the morphology of juveniles from cave deposits in Spain. So it is argued that the H. neandertalis and H. sapiens are full species.

If we went back in evolutionary time to just before the divergence of the two lineages then we would have a common ancestor that represented a fully interbreeding population. Then, for whatever reason, the genetics of the two incipient lineages began to diverge. This may have been initiated by a range of processes, including geographic separation; ecological specialization or sexual selection. At this point the split would not have been irrevocable, but the conditions remained favourable for the populations (or subspecies) to continue to diverge and become two non-interbreeding species. During this interval some interbreeding would have been likely, but if those individuals were of lower fitness (left fewer offspring/copies of their genes) than indiviudals that mate within their own subspecies, speciation will be reinforced. Many duck species show similar patterns.

If Neandertal and H. Sapiens had sex and their offspring were sterile or inviable then this represents a type of post-reproductive reinforcement. If the two popultions did not, or could not, have sex this is a pre-reproductive reinforcement.

[ozymandias]

Ok smart ass

so what is your definition of a species?

My definition does not matter. Let's use a scientific one.

[Alchemist]

^ what some unknown poster said some obscure forum ...you've quote it here as evidence?

How shallow?


Because on the same page, the next poster countered the above argument by posting a link to a bbc article where SCIENTISTS said that they did interbreed:

Professor Chris Stringer, research leader in human origins at London's Natural History Museum, is one of the architects of the Out of Africa theory. He told BBC News: "In some ways [the study] confirms what we already knew, in that the Neanderthals look like a separate line.
"But, of course, the really surprising thing for many of us is the implication that there has been some interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans in the past."

John Hawks, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the US, told BBC News: "They're us. We're them.
"It seemed like it was likely to be possible, but I am surprised by the amount. I really was not expecting it to be as high as 4%," he said of the genetic contribution from Neanderthals.
The sequencing of the Neanderthal genome is a landmark scientific achievement, the product of a four-year-long effort led from Germany's Max Planck Institute but involving many other universities around the world.

So you refute the scientists? lol

you two are just pathetic!