Science n' Shiz Thread

[Roby]

Interesting thought Justin, That could very well be a subject for some experiments in the near future.

Originally Posted by Katulobotomia

1% is still far away from the claimed 98% or 90%...but 1% of the genome is still a huge amount of genetic information, and it had no apparent effect on the mice. Given this information, one can only conclude that the 1% of genome removed can be called "junk DNA" with all references to being useless to the host.

To me, with the given information found on various sites and tests made...the only reasonable conclusion so far would be that there is a huge chunk of our DNA (varies with species) that is completely non-coding DNA, which serves no function on the host what so ever. Although the last quote is purely hypothetical and relies on no real experiment what I can understand, but the 1% removal of mice genome is a solid indication that there are parts in our DNA that if removed....does not appear to change anything.

This is just how I am interpreting the data put forward to me.

However Katu, it is my time to point the finger at you. Just because the information is out there and that someone has come to a certain conclusion doesn't mean it is 100% correct.

The experiment used to come to this data may have only been focusing, as you said, on the "phenotype". Perhaps there is some sort of effect on the genotype, or even the effect cannot be measured and is therefore assumed to be non functioning. Often times for the purpose of an experiment information that is not necessary is assumed, that is why when using information from scientific journals one must be very cautious.

My point is that, making a conclusion without actually doing an experiment, and coming to it via the scientific process, throughout all scientific fields, is bad form.

[Sgt So and So]

I have to agree with Roby on this one. No thorough experimentation, no fact for me.

[Katulobotomia]

However Katu, it is my time to point the finger at you. Just because the information is out there and that someone has come to a certain conclusion doesn't mean it is 100% correct.

But I never said that (O_o)

...and don't you see that you are actually as "religious" about the issue as I supposedly am too. You are almost absolutely certain that there are no junk-DNA, even when there is literally no solid evidence on proofing that either

All I said: that according to all experiments I found and information found on various sources, all indicate that there is a possibility that the DNA has x% amount of "junk-DNA" in it.

According to the mice test, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is a possibility that the 1% of genome removed is purely "junk" in all of it's forms and can be removed from the species and absolutely nothing will change. But assuming that the 1% of removed genome has ABSOLUTELY NO effect on the host what-so-ever is only illogical, since the experiment did not cover all bases (only the phenotype as far as I know).

Personally I would not like the idea that there is "junk" in our DNA, but from what I have read from various sources, it is apparent that there is a good possibility that there is an X amount of "worthless/ancient/useless/malfunctioning/scrap/left-overs-from-viruses/switched-off or unusable parts of DNA in us.

PS: also something I thought: isn't there a gene in us that allows humen "in theory" to hibernate like bears? I read about it a while ago and that the gene is only "switched off permanently" and is no longer functioning in us and that it can be (in theory) removed without any apparent side-effects. Have you any info/thoughts about what would happen if you would remove such genes that do not function anymore?

Originally Posted by Sgt So and So

I have to agree with Roby on this one. No thorough experimentation, no fact for me.

..as so do I ^_^

EDIT: I think we are just arguing if the glass is half full or half empty :P Both agree but each have a different disposition.

[Lord Justin]

Originally Posted by Katulobotomia

PS: also something I thought: isn't there a gene in us that allows humen "in theory" to hibernate like bears? I read about it a while ago and that the gene is only "switched off permanently" and is no longer functioning in us and that it can be (in theory) removed without any apparent side-effects. Have you any info/thoughts about what would happen if you would remove such genes that do not function anymore?

Maybe it plays a specifically evolutionary role. Like maybe if you removed that inactive gene, we could never evolve to hibernate even if selection pressures in the future somehow meant that hibernation would be an effective survival strategy for our descendants to develop. (pure speculation here, obviously)

The point is, pulling genes and examining the resulting phenotype is not at all conclusive to say that that DNA is junk. There could be much wider effects and consequences having to do with whole populations and generations, and looking at an individual or a series of individuals can't answer those questions fully.

I know you're (that goes for everyone here) being moderate and not saying that any of the evidence is conclusive either way, I'm just saying we have to challenge the theories with what-if questions and not take experiment results at face value.

[Roby]

Originally Posted by Katulobotomia

one can only conclude
...the only reasonable conclusion so far
...is a solid indication

Katu, I can agree with your response, but these things do not sound like you are saying there is a possibility for junk DNA.

And also I do believe there is some "junk DNA" as you call it, however I don't believe the junk DNA is in the form of enhancers that have been found to affect the genes themselves, nor in the size you claimed.

P.S. The above is just semantics (but I like semantics :P)

moving on,

The Human hibernation gene is pretty interesting, and I've never heard of it before. It does remind me however of some tests done by some guy, I can't for the life of me remember where or when, but in any case; he did these tests with chickens, where in the developing embryo, he was able to insert gene "kickstarters" that essentially could turn on genes that were supposed to be turned off. It's an interesting mechanism, and through this he was able to literally add several vertebrae to the chickens tail, there by "dinosaurifying" it.

And I'm sure there are many things just like this in humans.

Another interesting feat mammals have for development is the development of limbs. When a hand or a foot grows how do the cells know when to stop dividing and to create a barrier in between each of our fingers and toes? The awnser is scheduled apoptosis. or scheduled cell death. This mechanism essentailly kills off the cells that attempt to grow in between the fingers where they're not supposed to.

But, this leads to the question of where the genes come into play. Now, I have no idea of how the genes control this apoptosis but I can take a gander and say that they could very well be affected and not change the phenotype or the genotype of a fully grown test subject.

[Lord Justin]

Originally Posted by Roby

...some guy...did these tests with chickens... was able to literally add several vertebrae to the chickens tail, there by "dinosaurifying" it.

There was a special on Discovery Channel last year about it, about different ideas on how dinosaurs could become a reality as in Jurassic Park. The show explained how cloning dinosaur DNA is impossible as far as we know because the tiny amounts of preserved tissue we have doesn't contain nearly enough intact DNA, then went on to describe how that biologist has been removing those "inhibitor" genes in chickens to create embryos with teeth, tails, scales, etc. It was really fascinating to see those embryos.

Originally Posted by Roby

But, this leads to the question of where the genes come into play. Now, I have no idea of how the genes control this apoptosis but I can take a gander and say that they could very well be affected and not change the phenotype or the genotype of a fully grown test subject.

I know some such gene "switchers" can play enormous roles in the phenotype. There is some genetic disease where a child's brain only grows to about half the normal size, and biologists have figured out that it's due to a defect in the switch-gene that tells the brain to stop growing, where the gene is activated too soon (or something along those lines). I can't remember the name of the disease or anything, I just remember I saw this on a show on PBS about genetics.

[edit]: Maybe we don't have any preserved tissue whatsoever I learned about the supposed tissue on that Discovery show but it looks like it's recently been found to have been bacteria. So Jurassic Park ain't gonna happen except through chickens

[Katulobotomia]

Watch this entire series!
Also in that specific video. Man that guy is good as he progressively starts to explain...

This is very interesting

[Katulobotomia]

A common coal plant produces about ~100 times more radioactive waste than a nuclear power station. Also that waste is pumped straight into the atmosphere. A large nuclear plant produces 400kg of waste (12 barrels) in a year which is all carefully monitored and stored in containers, while a large coal plant produces 3721640197 kg of HIGHLY toxic waste in a year which is all pumped into the atmosphere INCLUDING the ~100 times more radioactive waste produced.

400kg Vs 3721640197kg

Energy got from nuclear 86 000 000 MJ/kg, coal is 32.5 MJ/kg.
That is 2,6 million times more efficient than burning coal.

What what? Why are there so many anti-nuclear-power activists again?

Also nuclear power is the most cleanest,safest and efficient ways of making energy today.

Should someone inform Greenpeace about this?

[css2d]

I wondered about the same thing...

[Lord Justin]

Do you have an info source? It's not that I think you're a liar, and I agree with the nuclear power position, but I want to read more about it. And anyway you never know when someone has gotten their figures wrong

In any case, I find it funny that now they are calling newer coal plants "clean coal" even though it's still one of the most harmful sources of energy. It's like calling creationism "intelligent design" to make it sound more scientific, just manipulative semantics.

edit: nevermind about the info source. Google quickly brought up a Scientific American article (and wikipedia) with the same figures. This is mind-blowing, I knew coal was bad but it says "ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage." If I understand correctly that means that coal is releasing more radioactivity, by weight, than the nuclear waste that's being stored and intensely shielded to let it decay. Damn.

[Katulobotomia]

Originally Posted by Lord Justin

Do you have an info source? It's not that I think you're a liar, and I agree with the nuclear power position, but I want to read more about it. And anyway you never know when someone has gotten their figures wrong

In any case, I find it funny that now they are calling newer coal plants "clean coal" even though it's still one of the most harmful sources of energy. It's like calling creationism "intelligent design" to make it sound more scientific, just manipulative semantics.

Oh do I have the sauce? Yes I do :P plenty of them...

1
2
Energy density tables
Sum stats on what a coal plant produces annually
stuff about nuclear energy
Stuff about coal plants

EDIT: also this
amount of Uranium is the same amount of energy that is in 158,9 litres of oil, 1000kg of coal or 17 000m^3 of natural gas.

[Lord Justin]

lmgtfy, weird, it's almost like in my last post I said I just Googled it and found sauces -.-

Another interesting note from that Scientific American article:

Originally Posted by Scientific American

McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

So basically the direct effects of radiation are not really a problem since they're hundreds of times smaller than the radiation we absorb from space and the environment anyway. However the other emissions from coal plants pose much greater health risks, whereas nuclear power plants emit...steam. Steam and the same safe amount or LESS radiation than coal plants.

e:

Originally Posted by Scientific American

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."

It's interesting that people freak out about nuclear plants because of the RADIATION OMG, when even the radiation from coal plants, which is more per wattage than nuclear, is less directly dangerous than lightning bolts. And yet coal is a huge release of greenhouse gases and smog- and acid rain-forming compounds. Makes you wonder why we have ANY coal plants left, and why China is opening a new one every damn week.

People are so scared of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island...the reason we know those events so well is because accidents of that magnitude are astronomically rare.

[Katulobotomia]

Originally Posted by Lord Justin

lmgtfy, weird, it's almost like in my last post I said I just Googled it and found sauces -.-

Another interesting note from that Scientific American article:


So basically the direct effects of radiation are not really a problem since they're hundreds of times smaller than the radiation we absorb from space and the environment anyway. However the other emissions from coal plants pose much greater health risks, whereas nuclear power plants emit...steam. Steam and the same safe amount or LESS radiation than coal plants.

Yea...and all the nuclear waste is being treated and stored in an extremely supervised environment rather than just pumped back into the wild.

and it's 400kg Vs 3721640197kg of waste. And everything coming out from the coal is toxic and especially the mercury and arsenic.

77kg of mercury every year from a coal plant, and only a 1/70 of a teaspoon of mercury dropped into an average lake makes the entire lake not healthy to be around.

120kg of arsenic annually, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

Greenpeace please...come on man. Nuclear is the way to the future.

And if anyone thinks radiation is bad...there's so much radioactive ore in the planet that anything we can produce EVER, will not even make a slight difference on the planet. The entire core of the planet is molten lava mostly just because the earth is a giant nuclear reactor. Earth is too small of a planet to even have volcanic activity at this age...but it does, thanks to the iron and the radioactive core.

[Lord Justin]

And as I quoted above, we get hundreds of times more radiation from the earth, environment, and space, than we get from living near either coal plants or nuclear plants. The radiation is no big deal. The big deal is, as you said, the other emissions from coal.

Of course nuclear power does have emissions, almost entirely from the mining, processing and transportation of materials. But these are things that should be improved upon that are indirectly related to actual nuclear power production. And in any case those emissions are nothing compared to the amount of crap released from an average coal plant.

The debate is whether to gradually release all the harmful materials from coal smokestacks over long periods of time, or risk nuclear plants failing catastrophically once in a while (read: extremely rare) and releasing harmful radiation.

But we can also evacuate people from an area where a nuclear plant blows up...we can't evacuate people from areas where coal emissions drift. Because that's everywhere.

edit: agh man this stuff is really interesting, and frustrating.

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

The worst nuclear accident to date was the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 in Ukraine. That accident killed 50 people directly, and may cause as many as 4,000 additional cases of fatal cancer over time, as well as damaging almost $7 billion of property".[2] Radioactive fallout from the accident concentrated over or near Belarus, Ukraine and Russia and at least 350,000 people were forcibly resettled away from these areas. However, earlier fears about spikes in birth defects and other problems appear to have been unsubstantiated.

Chernobyl, the worst nuclear plant accident ever, killed 50 people directly and probably about 4,000 people over time.

Most sources say that coal plant emissions are responsible for thousands of deaths per year in America (I've read 24,000 and 30,000). I can't seem to find any sources except this old MSNBC article but still. At least 5 times more deaths per year in the US, caused by coal power, than all the deaths related to Chernobyl.

[Katulobotomia]

Originally Posted by Lord Justin

Of course nuclear power does have emissions, almost entirely from the mining, processing and transportation of materials. But these are things that should be improved upon that are indirectly related to actual nuclear power production. And in any case those emissions are nothing compared to the amount of crap released from an average coal plant.

..and even these emissions from mining, transport and process are so tiny compared to what you have to do to get the same amount of coal to get the same energy....it's like pissing in an ocean of shit, and piss is sterile.

Fact: you can get more uranium from common ore/dirt in your backyard than you get coal in your average soil. On average a kg of land you have 4mg of Uranium, and to have the same amount of energy in coal you need to have 10kg of coal. (O_o), and theres more Uranium in sea-water than there is residues of oil.....AND 80% of the earth's internal heat is from radioactive decay, we live on a planet that is just one large nuclear reactor

[Lord Justin]

Originally Posted by Katulobotomia

Fact: you can get more uranium from common ore/dirt in your backyard than you get coal in your average soil. On average a kg of land you have 4mg of Uranium, and to have the same amount of energy in coal you need to have 10kg of coal.

Haha holy shit. What the fuck are we doing building coal plants?

[Katulobotomia]

Originally Posted by Lord Justin

Haha holy shit. What the fuck are we doing building coal plants?

To be honest....I really...really don't know.

If I had to guess. I'd say it's because 50% of the population falls under the mark of 100-IQ, more than 70% are easily brainwashed and over 80% of people are just following trends without even knowing what they are.....and your intelligence has nothing to do to be eligible to run the government.

..or it's really expensive to build nuclear power plants and the technology required is far harder to manufacture than just a large furnace to burn stuff in and pump it out.

I think it's all above.

[Lord Justin]

Originally Posted by Katulobotomia

.. or it's really expensive to build nuclear power plants and the technology required is far harder to manufacture than just a large furnace to burn stuff in and pump it out.

True but is it more expensive than the healthcare people need for having tens of thousands of heart attack and asthma attacks, and for tens of thousands more dying, due to coal emissions? And is it more expensive than the bottleneck of energy production we're going to face in the next 50 years because of oil supplies running dangerously low and becoming more expensive and rare, while we don't have enough nuclear and alternative energy sources to fill the gap? What about the damage to buildings, environments and infrastructure because of acid rain? Or the damage to the environment due to climate change because of the greenhouse gases farted out by coal plants?

I know I'm preaching to the choir and you know all this...I just can't find a reason not to be massively in favor of nuclear plants.

[Katulobotomia]

Originally Posted by Lord Justin

I know I'm preaching to the choir and you know all this...I just can't find a reason not to be massively in favor of nuclear plants.

I can find one. Although it has nothing to do with it's efficiency cost or emissions. A country that has nuclear technology and has not agreed to be supervised by the IAEA can manufacture and enrich Uranium in ways to be applicable to military purposes and weapons of large scale disassembling of structures and things. Maybe the only major problem I see in this technology, is that it needs to be EXTREMELY closely supervised not to leak any nukes around the world.

EDIT: and I think the supervising, contracting to get Uranium, paperworks and organizing a new installation of a nuclear power plant must be a bureaucracy nightmare. Not to mention the reprocessing and storing of closely supervised waste must be kind of pain to handle. Also almost every nuclear plant is not just a power plant, they are huge facilities with almost a school like environments to teach the staff, handle paperworks and hold highly advanced equipment and storing systems. At least in here...

[Lord Justin]

Originally Posted by Katulobotomia

EDIT: and I think the supervising, contracting to get Uranium, paperworks and organizing a new installation of a nuclear power plant must be a bureaucracy nightmare. Not to mention the reprocessing and storing of closely supervised waste must be kind of pain to handle. Also almost every nuclear plant is not just a power plant, they are huge facilities with almost a school like environments to teach the staff, handle paperworks and hold highly advanced equipment and storing systems. At least in here...

But the bureaucracy pain isn't intrinsic to the power production, it's due to the state of public opinion about the "dangers" of nuclear power. Manufacture, reprocessing and storing of nuclear materials are certainly a big problem and we need to improve the efficiency, safety and cost of those things, but once again those problems pale in comparison to the problems of coal plants and aren't intrinsic to the power production (whereas emitting smoke is essentially intrinsic to coal power).

The concern about nuclear weapon production is definitely valid. But I was under the impression that refining uranium for weapons use is much more technically difficult than refining for fuel use? It's a legitimate concern, though. I am hoping that over the next couple decades we get serious about reducing our nuclear stockpiles. There have been some continuing efforts but they're small steps; I want to see big reductions.

But even then, I see that risk as being remote compared to the immediate environmental and safety problems that are being wrought daily by coal plants. It's like if you could choose for half of your diet to be either bacon or pure butter. Eating tons of bacon isn't a good idea and could create heart problems and such, but eating loads of butter would be terrible for you immediately. Take the bacon until you can find something healthier.

e: improved the metaphor

[Sgt So and So]

You both need to get into politics and smack the shit out of the energy lobbyists. This is insane.

[Bunglo]

Let's mix things up a bit,

Code within a Code:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1005...l/465016a.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0505133252.htm

Neanderthals are Modern Human:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0506141559.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...th-humans.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...bred-dna-gene/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm

Now I'm no darwinist so I'm sure I won't be participating in the comments that may ensue, I'm also not surprised by the above findings, but I thought both of these topics would appeal to some.

They also beg some interesting question in relation to darwinian evolution.

[Katulobotomia]

Originally Posted by Bunglo

Let's mix things up a bit,

Code within a Code:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1005...l/465016a.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0505133252.htm

Neanderthals are Modern Human:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0506141559.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...th-humans.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...bred-dna-gene/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm

Now I'm no darwinist so I'm sure I won't be participating in the comments that may ensue, I'm also not surprised by the above findings, but I thought both of these topics would appeal to some.

They also beg some interesting question in relation to darwinian evolution.

Ah the sweet wonders of life and it's magic-like properties to just....."do" incredibly complex stuff in a "simple" construct.

Also I am really not trying to sound like a faggot....but I've seen like 10-20 major science "breakthroughs" happen when I have just thought of them a few years in advance or even a decade before I read about it somewhere.

I remember when I was almost completely certain that the universe MUST have more than 3-4 dimensions of space to work...and that the other might be too small of in a different "plane" for us to directly measure....and a few years later I read it on an article related to string-theory.

I've always known two species like Homo Neanderthalensis
and Homo Sapiens that are so close to each other that they could in theory reproduce must have mixed in together at some point...and the real life evidence I've read in magazines only set my belief in stone....until I read about it like 8 years after I first "knew" it did happen. Sure they were all only thought up in my own mind with no real scientific math or proofs, but the concepts were always not much of news to me...they have almost all been just what I had thought up years before they release and article about it being true. I have a very strong feeling about string theory, it's the only model of the universe that feels like it is closer to the real representation of how things work.....towards unification of the entire universe in a one theory.

If anyone doesn't want to believe that the Neanderthal got mixed in with modern human needs only to see this picture

The genes are alive in us. Although the smaller ape (us) were the main survivor, they did contribute some cool characteristics into us, like our ability to be so diverse.

I have never really understood how life does it? If you would show us a system with only nitrogen gas and heat, and with the current laws of nature....it would be completely insane to say that this nitrogen gas superheated will eventually form so complex machines like us....that think and know that it exists.

Life is something that really does not make any sense to me...and what follows from the complex structure like cognitive abilities and self awareness....is just....metaphysical. Not real. Something even Albert Einstein could not understand how it is possible with just deterministic laws of nature and matter.

EDIT: just ignore the part where I claim my throne on being the all-knowing-entity. x)

I love how this science and shitz thread bursted into life :P

[Lord Justin]

Originally Posted by Katulobotomia

I have never really understood how life does it. If you would show us a system with only nitrogen gas and heat, and with the current laws of nature....it would be completely insane to say that this nitrogen gas superheated will eventually form such complex machines like us....that think and know that they exist.

Well...it's not just nitrogen and heat . More like nitrogen, water, many different organic carbon compounds, and a plethora of other crap. And hundreds of millions of years of time to chill out.

If anyone doesn't want to believe that the Neanderthal got mixed in with modern human needs only to see this picture

The genes are alive in us. Although the smaller ape (us) were the main survivor, they did contribute some cool characteristics into us, like our ability to be so diverse.

Actually this...

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Anatomy

Neanderthals were generally only 12–14 cm (5–6 in) shorter than modern humans...Compared to Europeans some 20,000 years ago, this is nearly identical, perhaps slightly taller. Considering the body build of Neanderthals, new body weight estimates show they are only slightly above the weight/cm or the body mass index of modern Americans or Canadians.

and this...

Originally Posted by http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18869-neanderthal-genome-reveals-interbreeding-with-humans.html

In fact, no Neanderthal DNA sequences are consistently found in humans. "Each person has a different bit of Neanderthal in them," says Reich.

...and the fact that we only have 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA, indicate that that boxer is just a really big dude, not some kind of resurgent Neanderthal . Their DNA most likely has no noticeable expression in modern humans, considering they were already so so similar to us. It'd be like throwing a rock into a quarry. Something changed but it's really hard to tell what.

I know I'm being nitpicky but this is the "Science" thread and not the "Create your own theory" thread

Life is something that really does not make any sense to me...and what follows from the complex structure like cognitive abilities and self awareness....is just....metaphysical. Not real. Something even Albert Einstein could not understand how it is possible with just deterministic laws of nature and matter.

To me, thinking about how the stars, planets, nebulae, galaxies and everything formed is just as hard to believe. But their formation didn't even have the instincts of self-preservation that living things have, and they can't evolve. They just fell into place and kept recycling matter with recycled energy for 13 billion years. Once you realize that all the wonders of astronomy and geology came about just by "falling into place," life becomes easier to swallow, in my opinion.

Though that doesn't detract at all from my awe at life existing. I'll never get over how freakin amazing it is.

[css2d]

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/0...rts_mutantbugs just a few interesting pics for the Entomology enthusiast among us

[Lord Justin]

It's so weird to me that genetic mutations caused by radiation produce those sorts of effects. If I had never seen a radioactively-mutated animal I would assume that genetic mutations would hardly ever manifest as bizarre physical deformities, but as still births, cancer, and subtle protein errors that quickly kill or catastrophically ruin the bodies' inner workings. The fact that so many descendants of animals exposed to dangerous radiation end up with strange, alien-like defects seems like something that should only exist in science fiction and horror stories, in my mind.

It's another one of those "I can't believe it turned out that way" moments which honestly are based in ignorance but fueled by awe and curiosity. Similar to convergent evolution...like how we evolved to get pleasure from the same kinds of sounds as some birds make, so that when birds make their calls we hear it as "singing" and it sounds like a complex instrumentation, rather than the meaningless sounds of something like a mouse or duck.

It just makes me stop and go "wow, it really turned out that way."

[Katulobotomia]

Chemical compounds are more likely to cause mutations than radiation. Radiation usually destroys the molecule, not.....alter it, leading to death.

Also...isn't it a bit weird when you say that "we have only 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA...", when Chimpanzees and Humen have 96-98% the same DNA....and we are a completely different species with dramatically different genotype.

If we suddenly mixed in with another species and got a whopping 1-4% of their DNA mixed in, that means EXTREMELY dramatic changes in the way our lineage evolved. Even if it had only been a gene or two that got mixed, it could still have extremely large effect in our appearance/species, popping in one generation and skipping another. 1-4% sounds like a dramatic change in the species evolution to me (O_o)

If someone would dig up this guys bones and skull and have them fossilize for a few thousand years...



I don't think anyone would put his skull and bones in the Homo Sapiens Sapiens category. EDIT: ok maybe they would because they know stuff...but atleast they would first be like "lol the fuck is this, no shit...hahaha omfg the hell?" I just think that this guy is amazing also that Neanderthal skull does look a lot larger than what modern humen have :/ also, they were most likely pale skinned and red haired? VIKINGS!!!!!

Althought almost every source does indicate that Neanderthal was at least twice stronger and they could heal from wounds that would otherwise kill H. Sapiens. (fact that they found Neanderthalian bones that had fractures on almost every inch of their bones that had healed back indicated that they were suggested to a world of physical abuse and conflict, where the H. Sapiens merely tried to avoid any physical injury altogether)

Also Neanderthal is thought to be the first Homo ape to bury it's dead...dunno if that is true, just something I read somewhere a while ago.

[Bunglo]

If Neanderthals were interbreeding with Homo Sapien, than wouldn't it be logical to call them Homo Sapien, rather than giving them their own title?

What makes what scientist call homo neanderthal so different than homo sapien that they felt the need to say we're not the same thing.

You have DNA being passed on though us by these beings, and like wise you would have our DNA being passed on through them by us as well.

You have findings of shells with makeup in them where Neanderthal excavation sites are found. Suggesting that Neanderthals had a similar sense of beauty as we do.

You have findings of Neanderthal tools that are equal and in some cases, superior to what earlier man came up with.

There are many similar accounts like those above, all pointing to a few things:

- Neanderthals were not the dumb, brutish, cave people scientist have long made them out to be.
- Neanderthals were at no more a disadvantage at hunting, communicating, building, etc than Homo Sapiens (eg. Cro-Magnon)
- Saying that because there are certain anatomical differences in bones compared to Homo Sapiens, they are not Homo Sapien, is simply not rational nor logical.

When we look at the actual facts and remove the bias of stupid cave men, we can logically come to the conclusion that Homo Neanderthal and Homo Sapien are one in the same, and remove the classification of Homo Neanderthal altogether.

Now, depending on your definition of specie, I suppose you could make an argument that Neanderthals were simply a different specie of Homo Sapien, but it would need to be in the sense that a dog is a different specie, sup-specie, or breed of Wolf.

Regardless of your argument, they would still point to Neanderthals and modern humans being the "same thing", to put it simply.

Who knows, the way things are going, the chances of us finding more Neanderthal DNA in us seems extremely likely to me.

We should now also take into account that with the cracking of the splicing code, many of the discoverers are suggesting based on their findings that the splicing code may be specie-specific. Perhaps we'll start taking the splicing code in combination with DNA and RNA as a bases for comparison, rather than just DNA and/or RNA.

[Katulobotomia]

If Neanderthals were interbreeding with Homo Sapien, than wouldn't it be logical to call them Homo Sapien, rather than giving them their own title?
What makes what scientist call homo neanderthal so different than homo sapien that they felt the need to say we're not the same thing

No. Since the word ´species´ is a bit vague, and at this instance it sounds just right for my ears. They were too a lineage from the earlier ape from which both branched off. Both Homo, both very closely related. They had distinctive characteristic in build, culture, anatomy and were exceptionally stronger compared to Homo Sapiens and could withstand A LOT more damage to their bodies than us. Sure there are a lot of differences in races in human species today, but nothing as large as with between Neanderthal and Sapiens.

You have DNA being passed on though us by these beings, and like wise you would have our DNA being passed on through them by us as well.

Interbreeding between two species is nothing new in the natural world, they just have to be relatively close to each other in terms of evolution.

You have findings of shells with makeup in them where Neanderthal excavation sites are found. Suggesting that Neanderthals had a similar sense of beauty as we do.

You have findings of Neanderthal tools that are equal and in some cases, superior to what earlier man came up with.

Yea I've heard that Neanderthal was a bit more advanced in terms of technology at the time than our Sapiens was....one more reason to differentiate them as different species.

When we look at the actual facts and remove the bias of stupid cave men, we can logically come to the conclusion that Homo Neanderthal and Homo Sapien are one in the same, and remove the classification of Homo Neanderthal altogether.

They were VERY different. Their physical attributes had adapted to much better to cold environment than Sapiens had, and they had universally many times stronger skeleton and muscle structure than a Sapiens. They were very distinctive, I bet a 100% pure Neanderthal today would be offended to be called "human".....after using your spine as a toothpick.

Now, depending on your definition of specie, I suppose you could make an argument that Neanderthals were simply a different specie of Homo Sapien, but it would need to be in the sense that a dog is a different specie, sup-specie, or breed of Wolf.

Human bred animals are a tricky one, since this phenomenon is something unfamiliar to nature. Even though many dog races are in fact every way a different species and they cannot interbreed anymore together, they are considered as a "race", since it's a product of an artificial breeding methods.

Regardless of your argument, they would still point to Neanderthals and modern humans being the "same thing", to put it simply.

Too different. When the other is so much stronger that it could kill you with it's eyelash....I'd say that's where I draw the line.


Also to Justin: The early universe was only radiation and sub atomic particles. It then cooled down and formed only nitrogen gas, which eventually "evolved" into other heavier elements in stars(made of only nitrogen) as they started to light up.

Modern African male skull
Modern Asian male skull
Modern Caucasian male skull
Neanderthal skull

I just think that the Neanderthal looks very distinctive with it's EXTREMELY protruding corners of the eyes and a very deep forehead with a VERY strong jawbone.... :/

[Bunglo]

Originally Posted by Katulobotomia

They had distinctive characteristic in build, culture, anatomy and were exceptionally stronger compared to Homo Sapiens and could withstand A LOT more damage to their bodies than us. Sure there are a lot of differences in races in human species today, but nothing as large as with between Neanderthal and Sapiens.

Every specie of animal has distinctive physical traits but that doesn't mean they're not the same type of animal.

For instance, shark and salmon, they are physically and biologically different from one another on numerous accounts but they're still fish.

Culture differences say absolutely nothing in regards to biological relations.

As far as race goes, biologically speaking, there is such a minute difference between one another that the entire notion of race is misleading and pointless. It simply doesn't exist.

Yet, even though there is such little genetic difference between what we call race, humans can vary a good deal physically.

Interbreeding between two species is nothing new in the natural world, they just have to be relatively close to each other in terms of evolution.

That's my point, if lions can interbreed with tigers, leopards, panthers, and many other types of cats, they're still cats. Not some drastically evolved specie where they can no longer be grouped together or need separate classifications.

Yea I've heard that Neanderthal was a bit more advanced in terms of technology at the time than our Sapiens was....one more reason to differentiate them as different species.

This would deal in the realm of culture and really doesn't warrant a separate title differentiating them from humans.

I suppose as we look back at ancient civilizations such as the Greeks, Egyptians, and countless others, and discover technologies they used and the feats they achieved (many of which we can't figure out or even do with modern technology), we should claim they were not modern humans but rather, a more advanced specie in this regard?

They were VERY different. Their physical attributes had adapted to much better to cold environment than Sapiens had, and they had universally many times stronger skeleton and muscle structure than a Sapiens. They were very distinctive, I bet a 100% pure Neanderthal today would be offended to be called "human".....after using your spine as a toothpick.

As stated above (and you simply need to look outside to see it), every animal is adapted to it's surroundings, it's doesn't mean they're no longer called "birds" or "flys", etc.

Human bred animals are a tricky one, since this phenomenon is something unfamiliar to nature. Even though many dog races are in fact every way a different species and they cannot interbreed anymore together, they are considered as a "race", since it's a product of an artificial breeding methods.

While the "common" hybrids we see or hear about (such as ligers, tigras, zedonks, etc) rarely or never occur in the wild, we can see that Grizzly Bears and Polar Bears are interbreeding with each other on their own.

They're both bears and the hybrid they pop out will also be a bear. Different species in the sense that they're adapted to specific environments, but they're still bears.

Too different. When the other is so much stronger that it could kill you with it's eyelash....I'd say that's where I draw the line.

I just think that the Neanderthal looks very distinctive with it's EXTREMELY protruding corners of the eyes and a very deep forehead with a VERY strong jawbone.... :/

That's fine it just seems like you're laying too much weight on physical/anatomical traits rather than genetic, artefactual, and cognitive evidence.

My perceptive is that both Neanderthals and Sapiens are Humans, and here's an archaeologist that feels they actually belong in the Sapien category:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/...cing-2010.html

It's toward the bottom of the article (it's a long one.)