Denisovians do not exist for another 100,000 years or so. Say their Denisovian DNA was in a heidelbergensis population in europe, what happened the Denisovian trait in europe from the neanderthals that were yet to come. After all we are talking about heidelbergensis having it and neanderthals evolve from them but do not have it.
Maezeppa on Dec 7, 2013 at 13:49:59
“Denisovians had ancestors, Clippie. Their ancestors mingled and those populations carried traits in common with the Denisovians. It's like you finding out your Irish grandmother was part German. Not a big deal.”
“"as scientists slowly figure out what happened over tens of thousands of years" Interesting that you refuse the possiblity that science may have to throw out the thousands or millions of years timeline.
Maezeppa on Dec 6, 2013 at 14:12:36
“Sorry, but nothing has changed in terms of the earths age and the emergence of the first hominid bipeds. If Creationists were honest, they would throw out 100% of their amazing fairy tale.”
“If you think "“My hope is, of course, eventually we will not bring turmoil but clarity to this world,” " means it fits perfectly with evolution, then it is not possible for us to have a conversation.
Maezeppa on Dec 6, 2013 at 14:13:54
“Evolution is a fact. Therefore, everything fits with the fact. Even delusional creationist beliefs are a result of evolutionary processes.”
“Well, it seems the evidence is drifting into the Creationist camp.
Evolutionist have nothing but more and more questions because they refuse to accepts the possibilty of a creator.”
Maezeppa on Dec 6, 2013 at 13:39:35
“You have an interesting fantasy life. How much evidence has "drifted into the creationist camp"? None. Not a speck. Nothing. Creationists have done no testing, performed no experiments, produce no evidence.. You have nothing.”
Hippasus on Dec 6, 2013 at 13:10:00
“The evidence keeps drifting in for the science of evolution. Those who support evolution accept that they don't know everything and the new discoveries will be made over time as scientists slowly figure out what happened over tens of thousands of years. Creationists have a need to know exactly how they came to be, so they embrace Creation without any evidence at all.”
“I like how the new information described that changes some of our views of human origin flies complete in the face of everything you believe about human origin.
I mean I guess if you're whole point is this article, then that means you agree in this 400,000 year old DNA along with our evolutionary cousins living along side and breeding with man.”
Maezeppa on Dec 6, 2013 at 13:47:04
“Thank you for posting something that proves creationists are wrong but everybody knows that already.”
“"Argument from ignorance" is that the best you have?My whole point is that there was not enough information to draw a conclusion. That is why I quoted the team lead.
You are so eager to attack that you missed the cliff.”
Hippasus on Dec 6, 2013 at 13:11:20
“With absolutely no information to support creation, I think it's safe to draw a conclusion about it.”
Parker95 on Dec 6, 2013 at 04:36:13
“"Argument from ignorance" is that the best you have?"
Given that every single comment you ever post is an example of comical ignorance and stupidity it was pretty much spot on Clippy. And your "whole point" was just another of your rabid attacks on evolution which you hate because it contradicts your religious dogma.”
“Let me get this straight.
The bones are believed to be Homo heidelbergensis.
The DNA is believed to be Denisovans.
They believe the DNA is actually 400,000 years old.
Denisovans is not believed to appear for another hundreds of thousands of years later than heidelbergensis AND 7500 kilometers away.
We are now to believe that various (believed)incompatible groups interbreeding but losing the DNA they gained.
The evolutionist here are patting each other on the back because they believe this helps their case for evolution.
Even the team lead of the find said:
"This really raises more questions than it answers." ....admits that he was befuddled by his team’s latest discovery. “My hope is, of course, eventually we will not bring turmoil but clarity to this world,””
lhoffman5 on Apr 11, 2014 at 21:45:11
“Problem is this; for how many years was it the considered knowledge that Cave Men lived only in middle and western Europe: Only of late Cave Man D N A has been found MUCH further west; All we can do is keep investigating, keep putting the pieces together. Because this new information is of the type that may or maynot be true; Just have to keep the faith, and keep on going!
More Questions than Answers: At this point that is more than likely the most desirable aspect of the whole thing. It will bring people from both sides of the finding into the field to look for more information to either prove or disprove the new paradigm. To all those about to get into the search: Good Luck no matter what you find.”
Maezeppa on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:11:54
“You are deeply confused. Can you even read? All we now know is that the ancestors of the Denisovans were more widely traveled far earlier than prior evidence showed us. Tell me, Clippie - in light of this information, are you changing your opinion about the accuracy of Genesis? Yes or no, please.”
SocBeat on Dec 6, 2013 at 15:55:40
“I'll help you get this straight.
The article clearly states that DNA for heidelbergensis differs from denisovians and neanderthals. However, it differs from denisovians less than it differs from neanderthals. This was surprising (not wrong, not contradictory, just surprising) because neanderthals are known to have lived in Europe, while denisovians are known to have lived in Asia.
So now we have evidence that denisovians have some much more direct relationship with Europe - either some of their ancestors migrated to Europe, or (more likely, I think) some heidelbergensis ancestors migrated to Asia.
I hope that helps.”
Maezeppa on Dec 6, 2013 at 13:42:31
“In science, new answers ALWAYS raise new questions. You also seem to be expressing incredulity that DNA is 'lost". Ever heard of "genetic drift"? Think real hard, now.”
Hippasus on Dec 6, 2013 at 11:02:53
“Evolution is a scientific theory, as new discoveries are made and new evidence is found, the theory will evolve. No scientist believes that he knows everything about evolution.
Creationists, on the other hand, have all the answers, God made man in his own image. They believe this without any evidence at all. It's so much simpler than trying to piece together scientific evidence and it requires no deductive reasoning at all.”
jvnvch on Dec 6, 2013 at 06:18:24
“It does raise more questions than it answers. There is so much we don't know about how we came to be as we are. It does seem evident there was a lot of interbreeding of different groups, and a lot of movement of different groups, over a period of at least hundreds of thousands of years.”
Avalanche3601 on Dec 6, 2013 at 05:46:27
“Yeah. Science is able to change when presented when new information. REgligious dogmatics, not so much. This discovery doesn't undermine evolution in the slightest. Evolution is established reality,bumpkin.”
Jeremy Bursac on Dec 6, 2013 at 00:53:36
“That shows a real aptitude for misconstruing things, but one thing that you know for sure is the earth is under 10000 years old. Cheers!”
“The flood lasted a year. Yet you believe in punctuated equilibrium while claiming they could not adapt fast enough. I still think you do not understand confirmation bias. ”
Maezeppa on Dec 4, 2013 at 13:23:41
“Sorry, Sweetie - every fish on earth would be dead before the last raindrop fell. Punctuated equilibrium refers only to transitional changes and not adaptation so your argument fails there as well (and even P.E. requires many thousands of years). That means you lose arguing the Bible and you lose trying to argue the science. Since you first heard the term "confirmation bias" from me, it's very amusing you would try to lecture others on its applicability. ”
“Now, you are talking gibberish. The original oceans where not salty. Fish can and did adapt to salt water. Only in your head, does one believe the mountains were so high before the flood. It is a fact that you can find sea shells on Mt Everest. So clearly it was underwater a some point. Technically explain why there can not be a divergence in a short time frame or reproduce fast enough to repopulate the world. You present impossibilities as facts, when in fact you have no evidence to support your claim. You also act as if there is no supporting science for the flood, when in fact there is.”
ythri on Dec 3, 2013 at 23:34:13
“The original oceans were not salty? Where exactly did you pull that out of?
You make a lot of assertions, and we are supposed to accept them as true. There is zero original research to support any of your notions about the oceans, the mountains, the mathematically impossible reproduction rates needed to repopulate the world in only a few hundred years, or the movement of animals to and from the ark in ridiculously short times. Zero. You can't point to any. Evolution doesn't happen faster than the known rates of mutation in animals. Mountains don't rise by miles over mere centuries. Those sorts of things need to happen for your fantasy to be true, yet there is absolutely no evidence for any of those things.
Everything I've pointed out is supported by centuries worth of science that you reject out of hand while, at the same time, are completely uninformed about. I don't have to present evidence, because the evidence is readily available in any science resource if you were to bother to look. I know you have never bothered, because people have provided resources to you, yet you still claim there is no evidence.
The irony of your position isn't lost on anyone who isn't completely brainwashed.”
Maezeppa on Dec 3, 2013 at 22:41:27
“Your creationism nonsense fails either way. Whether the "original" oceans were salty is irrelevant since fish cannot adapt to any water outside their natural habitat in forty days.
Mountains grow and all sorts of marine life rises up along with them. Your confirmation bias is so severe that it verges on the hilarious.”
“I actually never said whether it did or did not. But, clearly it applies to you.
Funny, I introduced you to the "conformation bias" term. Now you think you gave me a definition of it. Clearly, YOU failed to understand it. And yet you are amazed. ”
Maezeppa on Dec 4, 2013 at 15:10:15
“No. I introduced YOU to 'confirmation bias' and 'attribution error'. You still don't know what they mean, apparently. You just drizzle out scientific terms but the fakery is more obvious than you realize.”
MarsCydonia on Dec 3, 2013 at 19:32:57
“Indeed I am amazed and you can add amazement of the fact that you do not seem to realize that we can go and look at past comments.
You indeed brought up confirmation bias by simply stating "You also suffer from confirmation bias" but that was it. No explanation of what it is, no demonstration of how I suffer from it.
I however explained what it is and how you suffer from it, clearly giving a definition of it so yes, I think I gave you a definition because I did, its in the comments for all to see. That you think I did not is in fact amazing.
On the other hand, you have yet to demonstrate how my definition was wrong (since I fail to understand it), and have yet to demonstrate how I suffer from it.
Face it Clippy, you talk a lot but you don't say much. Well, at least you do amaze.”
“Mae, You will always show your foolishness. Again, Dunning-Kruger does NOT have any being on actual competence. It is only about how one perceives their own competency. Case in point, one may be very competent and still think his actual competency is much higher. Your hard head is making you a fool. You are making a categorical error using Dunning-Kruger. You make so many of them. Mae, once again you lose. ”
“Picture a man standing infront of a mansion with many rooms. It you tell him he is free to pick any room. Then he can actually select any room.
If you tell him he is free to pick any room that is on the sothwest corner of the fifth floor (a qualification). Then he is not really free, nor can he pick any room.
Each time you used "any" you gave it a qualification.
Your "authorities" only server to confirm your bias.
Once again your failures are demonstratable.
I hope you understand now.
Maezeppa on Dec 4, 2013 at 15:08:52
“Bad analogy. Picture yourself standing in front of a mansion with many doors. Not every door opens onto a room. We're telling you which doors open to legitimate science and which doors open onto a brick wall. We know because science has been there, done that.”
MarsCydonia on Dec 3, 2013 at 18:35:28
“It amazes me how you think you somehow demonstrated that confirmation bias does not apply to you and/or that it applies to me. I think you fail to understand what confirmation bias means even after I gave you a definition of it.”
Maezeppa on Dec 3, 2013 at 15:11:51
“What a bizarre analogy. Confining a man to "any" rooms in "a" mansion is still limiting. Apparently your Dunning-Krueger effect estops you from appreciating what a laughingstock your arguments are. Fish in a barrel. PS: You have over a dozen spelling and grammar errors in that post. But again, you're too incompetent to know you're incompetent.”