First off that is entirely a misrepresentation of the Neanderthal mtDNA
data. They didn't extract nuclear DNA, they extraced mitochondrial DNA.
Even the author of the Cell article, Krings, doesn't rule out neanderthal
input to modern humanity. He says,
"This suggests that Neandertals went extinct without contributing mtDNA to
modern humans." ~ Matthias Krings, et al., "Neandertal DNA Sequences and
the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell, 90:19-30, p. 19
but,
"These results do not rule out the possibility that Neandertals
contributed other genes to modern humans." ~ Matthias Krings, et al.,
"Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell, 90:19-30,
p. 27
One thing we are absolutely sure of, this Neanderthals mother didn't pass
on her mtDNA. But then neither did my wife--her sons are unlikely to pass
on their mtDNA although there is a very small chance of it. But the lack of
mtDNA doesn't mean that other parts of the genome are not from Neanderthals.
Now do other scientists believe that Neanderthal made some contribution to
modern genetic heritage? Yes. Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble BOTH out of
Africa proponents note:
"Economic competition for the available resources would be the mechanism of
replacement of one population by another where there was coexistence,
perhapse coupled in some areas with a small degree of interbreeding (in
which e.g. a few Neanderthal genes would have been taken into the much
larger modern human gene pool)." Christopher Stringer and Clive Gamble, In
Search of the Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p. 72
Another critic of the Regional Continuity model of Wolpoff, Colin Tudge,
wrote:
"The point is, though, that such breeding plans have given rise to a large
body of genetics theory--and this theory shows that the British and E
uropean populations of Siberian tigers would effectively be genetically
continuous even if the flow of genes between them was remarkably small. In
other words, if just one European tiger per generation was brought to
Britain--or indeed just one in several generatsion--this would achieve all
the mixing required.
"Translate this into the experience of early hominids, from erectus
onwards: highly mobile, often adventurous, and marauding throughout Africa
and Eurasia. It seems inconceivable to me that newly arriving groups would
not have mated at least from time to time with peoples they met along the
way. Sometimes the contacts would have been friendly, sometimes forced.
But such things must surely have ocurred, and if they did then there would
indeed have been gene flow between the many groups, precisley in the way
that Milford Wolpoff emphasises. I still think the candelabra hypothesis is
wrong. But I also feel that we can reasonably impose considerable gene flow
on to the Out of Africa scenario. So in important details Wolpoff would
certainly be right. Modern human beings wouldd indeed contain neanderthal
genes." Colin Tudge, The Day Before Yesterday, (London: Pimlico, 1994), p. 237
"The process of biological replacement was far more complex than mere
population movements, and probably involved slow assimilation and
hybridization of Neanderthal populations." Brian M. FAgan, The Journey from
Eden, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1990), p. 49.
The only anthropologist I know of who categorically rules out genetic
interchange between us and the Neanderthals is Ian Tattersall.
And then there is the Lagar Velho child found in Portugal this year which
clearly shows Neanderthal traits as none of the invaders from tropical
Africa have crural indices like this child. This child's crural index is
within the Neanderthal range.
So, Bertvan please if you are going to cite some genetic work please
understand it before you cite it and understand what the general feeling is.
Surely that example should be reason to be
>skeptical about which organisms "evolved into" which other organisms in the
>distant past. Maybe we won't know what happened until we have some idea of
>how it happened. You seem content with the theory that chance was the force
>behind evolution, and apparently become indignant with anyone who is not
>satisfied with that explanation, demanding that they offer an alternative.
If you have nothing to offer in replacement, then sitting on the fence
saying "nanner nanner boo boo you are wrong" seems to be rather juvenile.
The hard work of explaining things is what scientists do. They don't
simply sit still and tell the world that everyone is wrong! And that is
what one does when he doesn't stick his neck out and offer something in the
way of an explanation.
>Should we be forced to accept all simplistic answers to complex problems,
>just because nothing more reasonable has been suggested?
But unless you are willing to get off your ivory tower and start doing the
work of explaining things, you really aren't in the game at all. Even a
partially wrong explanation which leads one to the truth is better than no
explanation. And that is what exasperates me so much about
anti-evolutionists. They just sit around throwing stones and offering
nothing of value.
Personally, I
>suspect life might be too complex to ever be completely understood. I
favor
>all scientific investigation.
I see no evidence of you favoring ANY investigation. If you did, you would
be doing some!
However, those people who are satisfied that
>chance is the answer won't be inclined to spend much energy looking for
>anything further, will they?
And those who never offer any explanation won't even be offering simple
explanations much less complex ones. We all must explain the simple first,
the complex comes later. This has always been the way science has worked.
But those who give lip service to 'all investigation' but never actually do
any and never actually have the guts to stick their necks out and offer an
explanation are simply a bit cowardly--afraid to be wrong they never do
anything right because they don't do anything!
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution