According to Paul Nurse, Nobel Prize winner, there is some evidence connecting neanderthal to today's human.

Question

Why then do scientists still believe that modern humans descended from an exclusively different race?

Answer 1

Although I have not read Dr. Nurse's research I am somewhat familiar with the debate. I have to say that there is (to me at least) a good chance that Dr. Nurse will be proven correct in the future. I happen to know that the first archeaologist to have ever proposed that the Hittites were Indo-Europeans was ridiculed endlessly and unjustly forced to renounce his research. It was almost ten years (I believe) before he was proven correct. I look around me and see many people who have physical traits which could only be traced to Neanderthals (if you believe anthropologists). While I believe that evolution happened in some way I find it amusing that evolutionists still can't find a plausible theory they agree on.

Answer 2

Well old Paul may BE the last living neanderthal, but I can tell from the mirror that I am definitely a homosapien. It's like that crazy Da Vinci code mess. That guy sure is feeling good in the wallet though. A book and a movie. If you check Nurse's work out and can see flaws, you must have a great mind and I wish I could find out what you found that bothered you inside his theories.
Seriously!! @8=)

Answer 3

Not an exclusively different race. Different RACES, i.e. "Anyone familiar with the principles of evolution must recognize that racial differences come about simply because different people evolved under different ecologies—both physical and social environments. When this occurs, we must expect differences in the average number of gene expressions (allele frequencies) between any two population groups. These differences include average expressions in behavior, intelligence, and medical responses to treatment, as well as physical differences."
http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/race.htm

Paul Nurse won the Nobel for Medicine (Physiology) for his breakthroughs in cell research and has been a leading force in cancer research and the underlying causes of rare genetic diseases.

Many scientists believe MODERN humans may have evolved from Neanderthals. Some researchers (anthrolopologists) want to separate the term "Neanderthal" from "homosapien" because there is some evidence that we are not direct descendants of them, but of Cro-Magnons. The reason is that Neanderthals went extinct nearly 30,000 years ago. All say we are direct descendants of chimpanzees, etc. because there is proof of relation existing in the skulls of monkey and man. I say, hey, the Neanderthals died out and their contribution to modern Europeans is probably gone too. They became extinct mainly from interbreeding and some say homosapiens don't carry their DNA. This is true to an extent. Deeper research into cell study will explain DNA code more readily. I believe that humans definitely had some similarities with neanderthals, even though it is far less than with monkeys.

It is anthropologists who hotly contest the Neanderthal thing. Among themselves, most notably. As I cannot find a quote from Paul Nurse concerning evolution or Neanderthals I am taking it to mean you are talking about his cell research from 2001. Science is an ever-changing and ever-growing process. We have genetic similarities to millions of animals.

"It was... mind-boggling when, in 1987, British researchers demonstrated that a human gene could be inserted into the cells of a lowly yeast -- and it functioned perfectly well. In this landmark experiment, researchers Paul Nurse and Melanie G. Lee showed that the gene in question, one that controlled the division of cells, was extremely similar despite the fact that yeast and the distant ancestors of humans diverged about 1 billion years ago.

The Human Genome Project is revealing many dramatic examples of how genes have been "conserved" throughout evolution -- that is, genes that perform certain functions in lower animals have been maintained even in the human DNA script, though sometimes the genes have been modified for more complex functions.


This thread of genetic similarity connects us and the roughly 10 million other species in the modern world to the entire history of life, back to a single common ancestor more than 3.5 billion years ago. And the evolutionary view of a single (and very ancient) origin of life is supported at the deepest level imaginable: the very nature of the DNA code in which the instructions of genes and chromosomes are written. In all living organisms, the instructions for reproducing and operating the individual is encoded in a chemical language with four letters -- A, C, T, and G, the initials of four chemicals. Combinations of three of these letters specify each of the amino acids that the cell uses in building proteins. "
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/l_044_02.html

Do you have the Paul Nurse quote on hand? I'd be curious to read it. Best of luck with your research.

Answer 4

There is SOME evidence. What do you expect? All scientists to rapidly support Nurse's work because he won the Nobel prize? Science does not work by belief, but by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. On this point, not all the evidence is in yet. Science works much more slowly than you do, obviously.

Answer 5

ya Paul Krugman is such an fool. He needs a "regulated unfastened marketplace" (oxymoron) and he thinks that capital can come from a printing press. i assume he under no circumstances found out with regard to the Weimar Republic or the undemanding theory-approximately furnish and demand.

Answer 6

because just the same way they thought the world was flat, i think its because they see them self's as some kind of Ariana race,pure breed just look around,you see plenty of evidence to support Paul nurse .

Answer 7

sorry do not know