Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 168
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: We're all 4% Neanderthal?

  1. #1 We're all 4% Neanderthal? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12
    Background Info: Even though the line of evolutionary descent for Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis diverged 700,000 years ago there seems to be new evidence that neanderthals weren't the brutish, uncivilized cavemen that popular culture makes them out to be nowadays. There has been new evidence that neanderthals work makeup, hunted large game and even may have managed to think up a language (granted, with a more limited number of sounds due to the higher positioning of their tongues in their mouths). Their brain size is actually larger than ours so some anthropologists argue they may have been even smarter than we are, but that's up for debate. Lastly, it seems that far from having deep voices and making apelike grunts like we imagine the larynx of a neanderthal was squatter than ours meaning their voices would have been much higher pitched and clearer due to their large chest cavities. Wouldn't it have been interesting if when the two species met about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago we were actually the ones who sounded apelike and primitive to them?

    But anyhow, the real subject up for discussion is the fact that scientists have recently discovered that 70% of the world's population carries between 1 and 4 percent neanderthal DNA. This is equivalent to if one of your two or three times great grandparents had been a FULL neanderthal which is a huge amount of DNA for a species that went extinct 30,000 years ago. It would also change the theory that humans killed off neanderthals in a quest for territory; instead, in light of new evidence of their intelligence it seems neanderthals might have been seen as potential mates by early humans and simply been bred out as a recognizable species due to the sheer overwhelming number of humans vs. neanderthals. So, were neanderthals brutes or charming and witty victims of their own success?

    OPINIONS, I'm so excited and fascinated by all this!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    This has been known for a while, but is still very interesting information. From what I have read a while ago, Neanderthals, judging from the shape of their cranial cavity, might have been less imaginitive than us, but with better memories. It is just a possibility though. Of modern humans, all non-Africans have some Neanderthal DNA in them, with some having Denisovian as well. Africans don't though.

    I am not so sure about us breeding them into oblivion though. I think we might have had even higher percentages of their DNA if that were the case. While we did breed with them, I think we probably just outcompeted them to the largest extent. Some scientists think our interbreeding might even have helped with the change to lighter skin and also introduced red/blonde hair into our genome, since some Neanderthal hair has been found to have been red, and also because they would have had a much longer time to evolve lighter skin to aid in vitamin D production at higher latitudes.

    I think that even though they might have talked and even had a religion, it is quite telling that dispite having been around for 700k years, they never came close to the level of society we have developed in our 200k years of existence, even though the bulk of it has happened in the last 100k years, and most significantly in the last 10k years. I think that alone might point towards an advantage back when we first started competing for the same recources.


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    This has been known for a while, but is still very interesting information. From what I have read a while ago, Neanderthals, judging from the shape of their cranial cavity, might have been less imaginitive than us, but with better memories. It is just a possibility though. Of modern humans, all non-Africans have some Neanderthal DNA in them, with some having Denisovian as well. Africans don't though.

    I am not so sure about us breeding them into oblivion though. I think we might have had even higher percentages of their DNA if that were the case. While we did breed with them, I think we probably just outcompeted them to the largest extent. Some scientists think our interbreeding might even have helped with the change to lighter skin and also introduced red/blonde hair into our genome, since some Neanderthal hair has been found to have been red, and also because they would have had a much longer time to evolve lighter skin to aid in vitamin D production at higher latitudes.

    I think that even though they might have talked and even had a religion, it is quite telling that dispite having been around for 700k years, they never came close to the level of society we have developed in our 200k years of existence, even though the bulk of it has happened in the last 100k years, and most significantly in the last 10k years. I think that alone might point towards an advantage back when we first started competing for the same recources.
    Well, they were only around for 300,000 years actually; 700,000 years ago was when their lineage diverged from us humans. And I also have been thinking about the fact that they didn't manage half of what we have managed to accommplish even when they had twice the time to do it. And yet, in defense of the argument their intelligence was near or on par with humans I will mention they also endured numerous ice ages which also speaks immensely of their intelligence, but would have also hindered their society. I mean, our great leap forward began with agriculture, how could they have accomplished this when the ground was frozen half they time they were on earth, basically forcing them to continue a hunter-gatherer existence?
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    The Neanderthals were built to endure the ice ages just like the polar bears are built to survive in their environment. The polar bear population is receeding due to global warming and they are interbreeding back into their cousins the brown bear. I would imagine this also was the case for neanderthals when the ice mass was decreasing and their population decreased but also began inteerbreeding with humans which would explain why we have their small percentage on DNA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    built to endure the ice ages
    I wouldn't exactly say that. I think if that were the case they would have lost very little of their body hair. Their physiology denotes a species that was originally intended for a warm climate but adapted just enough to endure the cold. And yes, it's true that although some tribes were sadly stranded in the Iberian peninsula and the tip of Italy most Neanderthals began to spread into Eurasia and the Middle East. This is where we met them and began to interbreed, but I don't think their physiology is nearly different enough from ours to say the only reason they survived the ice ages was because they were made for it.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Do_It_Like_A_Dude12 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    built to endure the ice ages
    I wouldn't exactly say that. I think if that were the case they would have lost very little of their body hair. Their physiology denotes a species that was originally intended for a warm climate but adapted just enough to endure the cold. And yes, it's true that although some tribes were sadly stranded in the Iberian peninsula and the tip of Italy most Neanderthals began to spread into Eurasia and the Middle East. This is where we met them and began to interbreed, but I don't think their physiology is nearly different enough from ours to say the only reason they survived the ice ages was because they were made for it.
    It is said our species originated in Africa so it seems likely that some of our ancestors left Africa and evolved with the ice age which would give us our Neanderthals. The ones that stayed and later left Africa evolved to whatever environment they settled in which gave them their unique traits. Later when we crossed paths again when the last ice age was receeding their genes blended in with ours. This makes more sense to me since we have today unique physical traits for example: the latinos, the chinese, Japanese, and so on.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Do_It_Like_A_Dude12 View Post
    Background Info: Even though the line of evolutionary descent for Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis diverged 700,000 years ago there seems to be new evidence that neanderthals weren't the brutish, uncivilized cavemen that popular culture makes them out to be nowadays. There has been new evidence that neanderthals work makeup, hunted large game and even may have managed to think up a language (granted, with a more limited number of sounds due to the higher positioning of their tongues in their mouths). Their brain size is actually larger than ours so some anthropologists argue they may have been even smarter than we are, but that's up for debate. Lastly, it seems that far from having deep voices and making apelike grunts like we imagine the larynx of a neanderthal was squatter than ours meaning their voices would have been much higher pitched and clearer due to their large chest cavities. Wouldn't it have been interesting if when the two species met about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago we were actually the ones who sounded apelike and primitive to them?

    But anyhow, the real subject up for discussion is the fact that scientists have recently discovered that 70% of the world's population carries between 1 and 4 percent neanderthal DNA. This is equivalent to if one of your two or three times great grandparents had been a FULL neanderthal which is a huge amount of DNA for a species that went extinct 30,000 years ago. It would also change the theory that humans killed off neanderthals in a quest for territory; instead, in light of new evidence of their intelligence it seems neanderthals might have been seen as potential mates by early humans and simply been bred out as a recognizable species due to the sheer overwhelming number of humans vs. neanderthals. So, were neanderthals brutes or charming and witty victims of their own success?

    OPINIONS, I'm so excited and fascinated by all this!
    Divergence time is perhaps closer to 500 kya (500,000 years) but, 700,000 years is extremely close as well. To put that into perspective, the divergence time (DNA coalescence / nuclear DNA common ancestor) between a French (basque) and African (San / Yoruba) person, on average, is about 800,000 years. It is very common for modern humans to be more related to neanderthals than they are to other modern humans.

    In fact, Eurasians do not share just 1-4% of their DNA with Neandertals, they share 99.7%+ of their DNA with Neandertals. Africans (San / Yoruba) share 1-4% less with Neandertals than Eurasians do but, 95-98% of their DNA is still identical to Neandertals. The reduced percentage in Africans is perhaps from them migrating deep into Africa and breeding with other Hominids.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Do_It_Like_A_Dude12 View Post
    Background Info: Even though the line of evolutionary descent for Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis diverged 700,000 years ago there seems to be new evidence that neanderthals weren't the brutish, uncivilized cavemen that popular culture makes them out to be nowadays. There has been new evidence that neanderthals work makeup, hunted large game and even may have managed to think up a language (granted, with a more limited number of sounds due to the higher positioning of their tongues in their mouths). Their brain size is actually larger than ours so some anthropologists argue they may have been even smarter than we are, but that's up for debate. Lastly, it seems that far from having deep voices and making apelike grunts like we imagine the larynx of a neanderthal was squatter than ours meaning their voices would have been much higher pitched and clearer due to their large chest cavities. Wouldn't it have been interesting if when the two species met about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago we were actually the ones who sounded apelike and primitive to them?

    But anyhow, the real subject up for discussion is the fact that scientists have recently discovered that 70% of the world's population carries between 1 and 4 percent neanderthal DNA. This is equivalent to if one of your two or three times great grandparents had been a FULL neanderthal which is a huge amount of DNA for a species that went extinct 30,000 years ago. It would also change the theory that humans killed off neanderthals in a quest for territory; instead, in light of new evidence of their intelligence it seems neanderthals might have been seen as potential mates by early humans and simply been bred out as a recognizable species due to the sheer overwhelming number of humans vs. neanderthals. So, were neanderthals brutes or charming and witty victims of their own success?

    OPINIONS, I'm so excited and fascinated by all this!
    Divergence time is perhaps closer to 500 kya (500,000 years) but, 700,000 years is extremely close as well. To put that into perspective, the divergence time (DNA coalescence / nuclear DNA common ancestor) between a French (basque) and African (San / Yoruba) person, on average, is about 800,000 years. It is very common for modern humans to be more related to neanderthals than they are to other modern humans.

    In fact, Eurasians do not share just 1-4% of their DNA with Neandertals, they share 99.7%+ of their DNA with Neandertals. Africans (San / Yoruba) share 1-4% less with Neandertals than Eurasians do but, 95-98% of their DNA is still identical to Neandertals. The reduced percentage in Africans is perhaps from them migrating deep into Africa and breeding with other Hominids.
    um, how can there be a divergence period of 800,000 years between french and yoruba people if our species has only been around 100,000 years?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Do_It_Like_A_Dude12 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    built to endure the ice ages
    I wouldn't exactly say that. I think if that were the case they would have lost very little of their body hair. Their physiology denotes a species that was originally intended for a warm climate but adapted just enough to endure the cold. And yes, it's true that although some tribes were sadly stranded in the Iberian peninsula and the tip of Italy most Neanderthals began to spread into Eurasia and the Middle East. This is where we met them and began to interbreed, but I don't think their physiology is nearly different enough from ours to say the only reason they survived the ice ages was because they were made for it.
    Okay "made for it" is incorrect choice of words, adapted to it in physiology differences is perhaps more appropriate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Do_It_Like_A_Dude12 View Post
    Background Info: Even though the line of evolutionary descent for Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis diverged 700,000 years ago there seems to be new evidence that neanderthals weren't the brutish, uncivilized cavemen that popular culture makes them out to be nowadays. There has been new evidence that neanderthals work makeup, hunted large game and even may have managed to think up a language (granted, with a more limited number of sounds due to the higher positioning of their tongues in their mouths). Their brain size is actually larger than ours so some anthropologists argue they may have been even smarter than we are, but that's up for debate. Lastly, it seems that far from having deep voices and making apelike grunts like we imagine the larynx of a neanderthal was squatter than ours meaning their voices would have been much higher pitched and clearer due to their large chest cavities. Wouldn't it have been interesting if when the two species met about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago we were actually the ones who sounded apelike and primitive to them?

    But anyhow, the real subject up for discussion is the fact that scientists have recently discovered that 70% of the world's population carries between 1 and 4 percent neanderthal DNA. This is equivalent to if one of your two or three times great grandparents had been a FULL neanderthal which is a huge amount of DNA for a species that went extinct 30,000 years ago. It would also change the theory that humans killed off neanderthals in a quest for territory; instead, in light of new evidence of their intelligence it seems neanderthals might have been seen as potential mates by early humans and simply been bred out as a recognizable species due to the sheer overwhelming number of humans vs. neanderthals. So, were neanderthals brutes or charming and witty victims of their own success?

    OPINIONS, I'm so excited and fascinated by all this!
    Divergence time is perhaps closer to 500 kya (500,000 years) but, 700,000 years is extremely close as well. To put that into perspective, the divergence time (DNA coalescence / nuclear DNA common ancestor) between a French (basque) and African (San / Yoruba) person, on average, is about 800,000 years. It is very common for modern humans to be more related to neanderthals than they are to other modern humans.

    In fact, Eurasians do not share just 1-4% of their DNA with Neandertals, they share 99.7%+ of their DNA with Neandertals. Africans (San / Yoruba) share 1-4% less with Neandertals than Eurasians do but, 95-98% of their DNA is still identical to Neandertals. The reduced percentage in Africans is perhaps from them migrating deep into Africa and breeding with other Hominids.
    Considering that science cannot make up their minds the differences between chimps and humans that some say 95%, 98%, or 99%, it is hard to accept that Neanderthals share only 1-4% with modern humans. Some say we diverged from common ancestor at 600,000 yrs, or 800,000 yrs for neanderthals and humans. Wiki says the gene loss for hair occurred 240,000 yrs ago but yet today we still have a large percentage of men who have alot of body hair.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Do_It_Like_A_Dude12 View Post
    um, how can there be a divergence period of 800,000 years between french and yoruba people if our species has only been around 100,000 years?
    It is because we, modern humans (as a whole), are the product of multiple ancestral hominids. It is the DNA of those hominids, our ancestors, that make up who and what we are today. We are not the product of an "Adam", "Eve" or one hominid family chilling in the "Garden of Eden" (so be it 6,000 years ago or 150-200 kya). If such a fantasy were true, then every single aspect of our DNA, all of our DNA, would coalesce with every other human at either 6 thousand years ago or 150-200 kya but, it doesn't. What our DNA does do though, is make many of us more related to our ancestral hominids than it does to one and another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Exactly what does that 1-4% neanderthal DNA consists of in modern humans to actually say it is different? We share a large percentage with the rest of the creatures on this planet and from my understanding is that science sees it as rearranging of genes is what makes the difference in appearances from one species to another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Contrary Viewpoint Alert:

    Two broad theories exist as to the origin of homo sapiens: "Out of Africa", positing a single line originating in Africa and spreading out from there; "Multi-Regional", positing parallel developments in a number of locations globally, wiht periodic intermixing.

    The "Out of Africa" theory is the preferred one at present, enjoying broad support among anthropologists and biologists. gonzales56, it is disingeuous of you to present an alternative theory as though it was the full and complete truth. It is not only misleading for the casual reader, but it calls into question everything that you post. By all means argue the case for Multi-Regionalism, but please do so while acknowledging it is not currently the consensus view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Between modern humans we share 99.9% so if Eurasians share 99.7% with Neanderthals and Africans is even less then 4%, what is the difference between Africans and other Humans living on different continents?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Contrary Viewpoint Alert:

    Two broad theories exist as to the origin of homo sapiens: "Out of Africa", positing a single line originating in Africa and spreading out from there; "Multi-Regional", positing parallel developments in a number of locations globally, wiht periodic intermixing.

    The "Out of Africa" theory is the preferred one at present, enjoying broad support among anthropologists and biologists. gonzales56, it is disingeuous of you to present an alternative theory as though it was the full and complete truth. It is not only misleading for the casual reader, but it calls into question everything that you post. By all means argue the case for Multi-Regionalism, but please do so while acknowledging it is not currently the consensus view.
    Multi-Hominid / Multi-Regional evolution/contribution is the science. It is a fact that we, modern human, owe our existence/genetic make up to multiple ancestral hominids. We as a diverse species do not, and have not, come about by way of one small hominid group located in, or around, a make believed garden of Eden. The science tells us, it supports (100%), multi-hominid contribution/evolution.

    I would also hope that it would not be my responsibility on this forum to cover every fairy-tale ever told concerning how modern humans evolved/developed or were created but, with that said, I did write in an earlier post:

    "It is because we, modern humans (as a whole), are the product of multiple ancestral hominids. It is the DNA of those hominids, our ancestors, that make up who and what we are today. We are not the product of an "Adam", "Eve" or one hominid family chilling in the "Garden of Eden" (so be it 6,000 years ago or 150-200 kya)."

    Who disputes that?
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 16th, 2012 at 08:27 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I think you guys have just been misunderstanding each other, John and Gonzales.

    Gonzales: The currently most widely accepted theory is that we evolved in Africa and migrated across the world. Our African-origin, migrating ancestors then interbred some with Neanderthals and Denisovians in Europe and maybe Asia. This group of Africans that evolved in Africa did have multiple ancestors, including common ones with Neanderthals, Denisovians, Chimpanzees etc at various stages in our history. On this much I think you both agree.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Kalster, I applaud your effort to establish common ground between gonzales and myself. It is an honourable and desirable objective. Unfortunately gonzalez has a disitinctive view of human origins that does not accord with the established mainstream view. No amount of political correctness, careful phraseology, or bending over backwards will change that. I've made my point in the post above. Anything gonzales says should be very carefully checked against reputable sources, or - more simply - just ignored. I'll try to do the latter in order to avoid a hostile outbreak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Exactly what does that 1-4% neanderthal DNA consists of in modern humans to actually say it is different? We share a large percentage with the rest of the creatures on this planet and from my understanding is that science sees it as rearranging of genes is what makes the difference in appearances from one species to another.


    Between modern humans we share 99.9% so if Eurasians share 99.7% with Neanderthals and Africans is even less then 4%, what is the difference between Africans and other Humans living on different continents?
    Barbi, the 99.7%+ (aka 1-4%) shows up in multiple areas/locations depending on each individual. It is also known that at least 50-95%+ of modern Eurasian and Oceanian HLA alleles (immune system genes) derive from our Neandertal and Denisovan ancestors. These genes are also found in some Africans.

    The Shaping of Modern Human Immune Systems by Multiregional Admixture with Archaic Humans

    Modern humans do not share 99.9% of their DNA with other modern humans.

    Concerning your question about the genetic differences, percentage wise, between San/Yoruba Africans and humans on other continents, it is at least between 1-10% depending on who and where one tests. It is simply math really... An African and a Malaysian cannot share 99%+ of their DNA with each other if the Malaysian has 6% more Denisovan and 4% more Neandertal DNA than the African. Of course there are a lot of variables and possibilities one has to account for, such as the fact that humans from Eurasia have, time after time, migrated into African populations, thus adding their DNA into those populations over and over again... One would also have to consider possibilities such as the possibility that when some humans migrated deep into Africa other hominids were there and breeding took place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I think you guys have just been misunderstanding each other, John and Gonzales.

    Gonzales: The currently most widely accepted theory is that we evolved in Africa and migrated across the world. Our African-origin, migrating ancestors then interbred some with Neanderthals and Denisovians in Europe and maybe Asia. This group of Africans that evolved in Africa did have multiple ancestors, including common ones with Neanderthals, Denisovians, Chimpanzees etc at various stages in our history. On this much I think you both agree.
    Kalaster, I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. They are entitled to them IMO. However, there is not one shred of evidence that shows, proves or even hints that we are a completely unique and completely different hominid species that evolved in any single location and then spread throughout the world. That is not who we are and that is not what happened.

    Even if we believe this theory of a specific area, in this case a small area in Africa, for the creation of one of our hominid ancestors, they would only be one of our ancestors, not thee one and only ancestor. This one hominid, if they existed, surely would have never made it out of their own region, and our DNA says if they existed they never did make it out of their own region, let alone spread throughout the world. Our DNA shows us that if there was such a hominid, the minute they stepped into other hominid areas they were genetically altered and transformed into a mixed hominid with multiple hominid ancestors. Our DNA shows us that we are the combination of multiple hominids and not the people of one hominid (so be it a African, Asian or European hominid). It is our ancestors, mixed hominids, that migrated throughout the world, not a single hominid from any region or continent.

    Again though, people can believe whatever they want but, we are not the direct decedents of any single hominid out of any region or continent. We are the decedents of multiple hominids from different regions and different continents. That is just the facts.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 16th, 2012 at 10:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Again though, people can believe whatever they want but, we are not the direct decedents of any single hominid out of any region or continent. We are the decedents of multiple hominids from different regions and different continents. That is just the facts.
    Then my intuition was wrong and as John said, you are mistaken. I think you have misinterpreted the "facts" as you have read them. We evolved into our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, just like any other distinct species evolves and then spread, mixing with some already existing cousins in Europe and Asia. That is indeed what our DNA shows. I am not sure where you have gained the impression that different species migrated, mixed with European and Asian ancestors and produced the range of groups we have today.These are not merely our "beliefs", they are the consensus view at the moment. It is you who have the alternative view.

    That link of yours (unless it says different in the full text, to which we don't have access) merely states what we are saying; that Neanderthal and Denisovian DNA mixed with Non-African humans first and only later with some Africans. That is still wholly consistent with full Homo sapiens sapiens migrating out of Africa and mixing with Neanderthals and Denisovians. These percentages are worked out differently depending on the context. We share about 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, but at the same time 1 - 4% with Neanderthals. How is this possible? Because different criteria are used in different contexts to produce the percentages.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    ~ off topic interlude ~
    Tell me about it, as if Neanderthal DNA wasnt already bad enough, someone I know that happens to have 2 eyes has "fish" DNA!
    We need to act quickly, I vote for the two eyes DNA sequence to be officially labeled as human in the bureau of intergalactic standards before its known as a Gardakian trait!
    ~ interlude over, we now return to regular programming ~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    We evolved into our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, just like any other distinct species evolves and then spread, mixing with some already existing cousins in Europe and Asia. That is indeed what our DNA shows. I am not sure where you have gained the impression that different species migrated, mixed with European and Asian ancestors and produced the range of groups we have today.
    Lets forget about the facts that the term homo sapiens sapiens actually does not describe one single hominid and that anthropologist and archaeologist lump many hominids into this category, even some Neandertals, OK? I just want to point out where it is you are going wrong.....

    For one, you keep stating that you are a homo sapiens sapiens from Africa (whatever that means), then you state your ancestors bred to Neandertals (which by the way, in your mind, does not make them a neandertal/"homo sapiens sapiens" cross for some strange reason, it makes them pure "African homo sapiens sapiens" <------ Your indestructible and unalterable pure ancestors I guess? You also refuse (why?) to give any weight or consideration to your Neandertal ancestors) and then, according to you, these humans traveled into east Asia, crossed themselves with yet another hominid but, and again, according to you, this too was not another hominid/hominid cross, it was, instead, still your imaginary and mind blowing, pure, indestructible and unalterable super "African homo sapiens sapiens" who remained on their global march of conquest and dominance.

    Facts.

    1. There is not a single "homo sapiens sapiens" that solely developed/evolved in any garden of Eden within Africa that made it beyond a very short distance (at the most) outside of Africa at that time. Whatever hominid bred with Neandertals during this time period, the cross created a hominid/hominid cross that was neither a african hominid nor a neandertal hominid, it became a different type of hominid due to the cross.

    2. It is this new hominid that spread throughout the world and bred with the Denisova hominids (creating yet another unique hominid).

    3. Modern humans, Us, are the offspring/decedents of multiple hominids from different regions and continents, and I really don't care who denies it or why they wish to deny it. I just know that it is silly to deny it, and I know that it is dishonest and disrespectful to deny it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    gonzales will you acknowledge that your viewpoint, as expressed clearly in your last post, is at odds with the consensus view? If you cannot acknowledge this, then there is nothing more to be said, other than an exchange of insults. If you will acknowledge this, then please make it clear in your posts that you are promoting a non-orthodox stance, regardless of how convinced you are of its correctness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Lets forget about the facts that the term homo sapiens sapiens actually does not describe one single hominid and that anthropologist and archaeologist lump many hominids into this category, even some Neandertals, OK?
    Please provide some references for these assertions? Humans, us, are all Homo sapiens sapiens. Some anthropologists lump Neanderthals as a subspecies, i.e. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

    For one, you keep stating that you are a homo sapiens sapiens from Africa (whatever that means), then you state your ancestors bred to Neandertals (which by the way, in your mind, does not make them a neandertal/"homo sapiens sapiens" cross for some strange reason, it makes them pure "African homo sapiens sapiens"
    Where did I say that? Please show me. All I said was that HSS evolved in Africa, spread throughout the rest of the world and interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovians. Of course if we interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovians, then our DNA mixed, but it is not nearly as significant as you seem to imply. Like I said, the percentages of genetic differences given are defined according to varying criteria depending on the context.

    But here we are talking about DNA only. The taxonomic classification is a description of DNA, but also of a host of other features, including anatomical, behavioural and geographical data, all of which existed even before DNA comparisons were done. Thus the classification of all modern humans as Homo sapiens sapiens is a valid taxonomic classification, even with the admixing of archaic DNA. Taxonomic classification is not as exact a practise as you seem to imply it is.

    So all of the points you labour on regarding us mixing with other hominids is a given for HSS after migrating out of Africa, but there is no evidence that I am aware of that points towards HSS mixing with other hominids in Africa after our first appearance +- 200k YA. If you have evidence for this, I'd be most interested to see it.

    So again, we apparently agree on most points it seems, apart from your assertion of anatomically modern humans in Africa mixing with other hominids in Africa before spreading out into Europe and Asia.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    gonzales will you acknowledge that your viewpoint, as expressed clearly in your last post, is at odds with the consensus view? If you cannot acknowledge this, then there is nothing more to be said, other than an exchange of insults. If you will acknowledge this, then please make it clear in your posts that you are promoting a non-orthodox stance, regardless of how convinced you are of its correctness.
    My view is the consensus view today. It wasn't like that a few years ago however. Of course, the consensus view just a few years ago was that modern humans were the descendants of just one hominid and that no hominid/hominid crosses ever took place at any point in the evolutionary/developmental process of modern humans. Without a doubt, this is and was a crackpot, racist and foolish view but, it was the consensus view. However, such ignorant falsehoods are no longer the consensus view and to come on here and state that, "yes, we, modern humans, are the product of multiple hominids from different continents breeding with each other but, I still want to say that a theorized single African hominid is the only ancestor of modern humans and myself," is not even remotely close to accurate. There is not a sound scientist on the planet that believes your claim, however, there are some people, for whatever reason/s, that still fight for the wrongheaded garbage that was the "consensus" just 2 years ago.

    You are going to have to ignore me or get over it John. We, Modern Humans, are the product of multiple hominids breeding with each other and no matter how much you keep trying to claim that we are not, it still does not make you right.

    Your ancestors John, like it or not, are also the Neandertals and possibly Denisovans too. No amount of garbage will every change that fact, and they are your ancestors because hominids bred with other hominids and those crosses made Us, modern humans. <----- This is the consensus now. Not your belief that we come from one hominid in a fictional garden of Eden. Like it our not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    You are going to have to ignore me or get over it John. We, Modern Humans, are the product of multiple hominids breeding with each other and no matter how much you keep trying to claim that we are not, it still does not make you right.

    Your ancestors John, like it or not, are also the Neandertals and possibly Denisovans too. No amount of garbage will every change that fact, and they are your ancestors because hominids bred with other hominids and those crosses made Us, modern humans.
    Again, we ARE NOT DISPUTING THIS! We dispute your idea that there was admixing before we left Africa. There is no evidence for that that I am aware of. Please read my post.

    You seem to be emotionally invested in this for some reason, using words like racist and so forth and lashing out for no reason other than some perceived grievance I am unable to see. I don't know why you would call the following of available evidence as negative in any way? Sure, new genetic evidence has come to light and it is now accepted, even by us.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    gonzales, you are arguing against a strawman. You keep screaming about 'a fictional garden of Eden'. You are the only one who has mentioned that.

    I don't typically quote wikipedia, but in this instance the relevant article gives a sound and concise description of the theory and contains some solid references. The article opens with this statement: "
    In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans, frequently dubbed the "Out of Africa" theory, is the most widely accepted model describing the origin and early dispersal of anatomically modern humans."

    I shall be rather disappointed if I do not have some Neanderthal genes, so I find your implicit racial slurs amusing.

    My main point: put aside the emotional invective and produce citations to peer reviewed articles that support your contention.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Again, we ARE NOT DISPUTING THIS! We dispute your idea that there was admixing before we left Africa. There is no evidence for that that I am aware of. Please read my post.
    I read every bit of every post Kalster, I believe everyone deserves at least that, and I digest ever bit of each post as well.

    At this point in time, it just really does not matter were the admixture between these two, our two, hominid ancestors took place or who initiated that contact. Time should be able to give us more facts concerning those questions.... However, if an African Hominid traveled, it still did not make it through Neanderthal territory without the two hominids mixing together, and thus, making a new hybrid hominid in the process that was neither, or no longer, Neandertal or the "African hominid" (<---- we still do not know who or what this "African hominid" was or if they are the ones who moved - It is a theory). Either way it is this ancestor group, our mixed hominid ancestor group, that spread throughout the world.

    What I dispute, is the old and wrong language that is still being used today. Example... You wrote: "We left Africa." However, "We" did not leave Africa no more than "We" left Eurasia. If this theoretical hominid from Africa is proven and it is proven that they moved, then just one of our hominid ancestors moved, not WE. If it is proven that neandertals moved and initiated contact with an african hominid, then still, just one of our hominid ancestors moved, not WE.

    Regardless of who was who and which hominid or hominids initiated contact, we are still the decedents/product of multiple hominids that developed/evolved in different regions and on different continents.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 18th, 2012 at 02:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    gonzales, you are arguing against a strawman. You keep screaming about 'a fictional garden of Eden'. You are the only one who has mentioned that.

    I don't typically quote wikipedia, but in this instance the relevant article gives a sound and concise description of the theory and contains some solid references. The article opens with this statement: "
    In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans, frequently dubbed the "Out of Africa" theory, is the most widely accepted model describing the origin and early dispersal of anatomically modern humans."

    I shall be rather disappointed if I do not have some Neanderthal genes, so I find your implicit racial slurs amusing.

    My main point: put aside the emotional invective and produce citations to peer reviewed articles that support your contention.

    John, Wiki does not catch my fancy but, I understand the point you are trying to make.. Again though, anthropologist and archaeologist cant even agree on what an early anatomically modern human is. There is no consensus and there has also been fraud after fraud found in classifying hominid remains/fossils... Skeletons are constantly being reclassified based on either clear fraud or by the whims and wishes of political pressures or bias agendas.

    If you want, you can post images of "homo sapiens sapiens" skulls and we can go over each one of them. How about we start with the earliest ones from Africa and the middle east? Would that be OK? It would cover some of the time period and territories we have been discussing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzales
    Regardless of who was who and which hominid or hominids initiated contact, we are still the decedents/product of multiple hominids that developed/evolved in different regions and on different continents
    Again you say this as if we have been disagreeing with you, while we have not. What we have disagreed with is your claim that we* mixed with other hominids after the first appearance of anatomically modern humans, but before we migrated out of Africa.

    *By "we" I mean us, humans, modern humans. Homo sapiens sapiens. Those that are closely related genetically, as well as behaviourly, anatomically, etc. Africans, Polynesians, Pygmies, Hispanics, Asians, Europeans, etc. Yes, those that migrated out of Africa mixed with Neanderthals and Denisovians, which includes all non-Africans. Yes, some Archaic DNA might have made it into Africa later on. "We" and "modern humans" are used in a reasonably well defined context here.

    My question is: so what? We were baffled by your strong emotional response, using words like crackpot and racist for the widely accepted view before the genetic evidence of admixture. Why use those words? What strong evidence before the genetic evidence do you know about that so strongly pointed towards admixture that an alternative view could have been characterized as racist and crackpot?

    Like I said, the taxonomic nomenclature considers more than just genetics, which is why the use of Homo sapiens sapiens is perfectly fine to describe modern humans, even with our genetic past. Of course there is debate about which fossils fit where. This is science. But what is wrong with that? What are you really driving at? You keep making emotional points and we keep agreeing. What is going on here?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Like I said, the taxonomic nomenclature considers more than just genetics, which is why the use of Homo sapiens sapiens is perfectly fine to describe modern humans, even with our genetic past. Of course there is debate about which fossils fit where. This is science. But what is wrong with that? What are you really driving at? You keep making emotional points and we keep agreeing. What is going on here?
    I like to discuss facts and keep conversations based on, or at least around, facts. If correcting nonfactual mistakes, statements or believes, while I am part of a conversation, is emotional (according to you), then I am emotional... Can we move on to actually discussing the topic/s at hand now?

    You are right that they consider more than genetics. The mainstream often considers their own wrongheaded beliefs/prejudices as indisputable and so they constantly try to cram every bit of evidence into their theories regardless of how silly or ignorant doing so is.

    A 5 year old child could look at this skull and know that it is not a modern human...



    Yet, the mainstream had this to say about the skull....

    160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans

    The fossilized skulls of two adults and one child discovered in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia have been dated at 160,000 years, making them the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.

    The fossils date precisely from the time when biologists using genes to chart human evolution predicted that a genetic "Eve" lived somewhere in Africa and gave rise to all modern humans.

    "We've lacked intermediate fossils between pre-humans and modern humans, between 100,000 and 300,000 years ago, and that's where the Herto fossils fit," said paleoanthropologist Tim White, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and a co-leader of the team that excavated and analyzed the discovery site. "Now, the fossil record meshes with the molecular evidence."

    "With these new crania," he added, "we can now see what our direct ancestors looked like."

    I will continue along this line a little bit later today.. I have a few things left to get done today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I like to discuss facts and keep conversations based on, or at least around, facts........... The mainstream often considers their own wrongheaded beliefs/prejudices as indisputable and so they constantly try to cram every bit of evidence into their theories regardless of how silly or ignorant doing so is.
    I take it you don't see how ironic these two sentences are when found within the same post.

    You have an agenda. You are sticking rigidly to it. The agenda involves attacks on the integrity and professionalism of almost an entire field of human knowledge. You make this attack without justifying it. You don't recognise that this is what you are doing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I like to discuss facts and keep conversations based on, or at least around, facts........... The mainstream often considers their own wrongheaded beliefs/prejudices as indisputable and so they constantly try to cram every bit of evidence into their theories regardless of how silly or ignorant doing so is.
    I take it you don't see how ironic these two sentences are when found within the same post.

    You have an agenda. You are sticking rigidly to it. The agenda involves attacks on the integrity and professionalism of almost an entire field of human knowledge. You make this attack without justifying it. You don't recognise that this is what you are doing.
    John, I have no agenda outside of discussing what is known and looking at the evidence. I am not the one who brought up an old mainstream belief that is dead but, still has some aspects about it that gets kicked by some and then declared alive and moving. With that said though, I am a firm believer in peoples rights to believe whatever they want. I think it is healthy to have many kinds and beliefs in any and all discussions.

    My posts are clear though, they tend to heavily focus on and around evidence and what is known. I do not want to rub anyone the wrong way or offend them (I prefer not to) but, concerning this topic, the out of Africa and one origin theory being mentioned here is kin to the theory that the world is/was flat.

    I will say it again though... I am willing to discuss the evidence with anyone. I even took it upon myself the post the skull, the bread and butter, of those who have/had an out of Africa believe in order to show people how wrongheaded the belief is.

    If you want to talk about irony, the transitional skulls that we have found between archaic humans and Us, involve neandertals. The idea of a modern human hominid that solely evolved in Africa (or any continent for that matter) is in the realm of science fiction at this point in time.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 23rd, 2012 at 11:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Science stands by the out of Africa theory based mainly on the only fossil evidence found was predominately in Africa for pre-humans. Of course, many species that lived before left no fossil evidence of their existence and I'm sure this also applies to pre-humans that may have lived and evolved on other continents. The problem is science can only determine the theory on the physical evidence they find and build their story from there.

    No evidence means to science it never existed. This is why it is so threatening when an independent thinker comes along and rationally purposes another possible idea then the rigid explanations of details that covers evolution's timeline. People that take an interest in educating themselves on all of the information that science has gathered over the years of how life started and its history to present may not share the same interpretation of the evidence and form their own opinion.

    I think that those people have the right to share their views without being ridiculed for expressing a different viewpoint of the evidence. It amazes me how so many science minded people who have been educated in college actually believe that every word written on the various subjects of our history of life's past is the absolute truth. In school, what is taught is not necessarily the facts but they do want you to answer the question with the answer they have educated you with as the "correct answer."

    In reality, most of the books that educate you on these various subjects are outdated and their information is no longer true or has been expanded so much that a newer definition gives the reader an entirely different opinion from the one they had before with the old information that was taught. Anyway, my point is on a science forum, people should loosen up a bit when others challenge old views of explanations of the past history of life.

    Of course, I am NOT including creationists beliefs since their sources of information are inadequate to explain anything meaningful to people who really have a deep desire to find the truth of our planet's history and don't want to be labeled as either an envolutionist or a creationist, just a seeker of rational truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Science stands by the out of Africa theory based mainly on the only fossil evidence found was predominately in Africa for pre-humans.
    And some pretty solid genetic evidence.

    And maybe some linguistic evidence.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If you want to talk about irony, the transitional skulls that we have found between archaic humans and Us, involve neandertals. The idea of a modern human hominid that solely evolved in Africa (or any continent for that matter) is in the realm of science fiction at this point in time.
    transitional in what way ? in time, place or morphology ?
    as for the realm of science fiction : isn't it a fact that all pre-100,000 old H.sapiens fossils are found in Africa ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Science stands by the out of Africa theory based mainly on the only fossil evidence found was predominately in Africa for pre-humans.
    And some pretty solid genetic evidence.

    And maybe some linguistic evidence.
    Hi guys:
    ok let me weigh in on this:
    as a culture/species?/society, we tend to want simple black and white answers for complex questions.
    as/re archaeological evidence-------above a certain latitude, there ain't none older than the last glaciation-----blame it on the glaciers
    as re % dna related------------we share DNA with (almost?) every living thin on this planet, including plants------(not sure about cyano bacteria nor fungi)
    and it kinda depends on what you look for in the dna sequences-: substitutions, missing pairs, or added pairs--which can easily skew your results by 100%-----------eg if one approach shows 90% shared, another may show 85% shared, and another 95% shared
    --------------'
    remember the "evolutionary bottleneck" of about 70,000ybp when tobo blew-------
    (wild guess) there were surviving pockets of our potential ancestors spread out across africa, asia, and europe---(and maybe on day someone will find evidence in the americas)------------and then, a reunification and a renewed comingling of the gene pool seems likely.

    in the lifetime of our species homo----we have seen an ice age, and several glaciations, and consequent sea levels rising and falling by as much as 300 meters(acording to some scientist)-------so a lot of the potential archaelogical evidence is likely near the edges of the continental slopes-at the glacial shorelines-----

    with archaelogy we oftimes find ourselves as the 3 blind men describing an elephant------
    we assume to have a hard bottom line in any science at the peril of the science
    when i was a student of archaelogy and anthropology the dogma of the day was
    all dinasaurs were cold blooded
    clovis first
    and homo sapiens neanderthalensis was an evolutionary dead end
    ----------------
    how much dogma of the time has since been dismissed
    consensus is just another name for dogma
    let us not fall victim to it's limitations

    ok
    just my opinions
    rod
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Nice early post sculptor. If you had used capital letters where appropriate I would have given you a Like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,498
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    as a culture/species?/society, we tend to want simple black and white answers for complex questions.
    That is a depressing tendency. I think scientists, philosophers and even engineers are trained not to think that way.

    consensus is just another name for dogma
    Of course it isn't.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post

    as for the realm of science fiction : isn't it a fact that all pre-100,000 old H.sapiens fossils are found in Africa ?
    It is not a fact...

    I posted this fossil and mainstream article earlier (which is all a lie).
    160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans


    Now lets look at the truth. Lets look at who and what this so called "anatomically modern african human" really is and who its hominid family is and where they come from.


    Greece: 450-200 kya



    Spain: Atapuerca 800-400 kya


    This family of hominids are all over Eurasia, from England to China, and the 3 or 4 that have been found in north-east and east Africa are all much newer than even the oldest discovered in England.

    One has to keep in mind that some believe that it is about 700,000 years ago that neandertals, denisovans and modern humans did not exist and that only our complete genetic/genome common ancestor existed. However, and unfortunately for the "out of africa" believers, this hominid was in Eurasia 700,000+ years ago and they had not yet been in africa or existed in Africa at that point in time.

    It is pretty simple actually. Our hominid ancestor had to be at a point and place in time that allowed for neandertals, denisovans and "modern humans" to branch off / come from them. This mean they had land... They had territory. It means that their remains would be spread out over that land.. However, we do not see any atomically modern humans in africa. What we see is the lands and territories of an eurasian hominid, and we see their offspring, the neandertals and denisovans in eurasia and we see some of their offspring, which according to the fossil record and skull in north east africa, that made its way into africa at some point.

    Regardless of theories, the skull found in africa (the one I posted) that is/was being pawned off as an african modern human and proof that modern human evolved solely in africa, is in fact nothing more than a Eurasian hominid.

    I like to look at the evidence and stick to that evidence, and the evidence points to hominids and multiple hominids constantly migrating, drifting apart, drift back together and breeding.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 24th, 2012 at 04:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    ...mistake post..why the hell can't I delete this?!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    [QUOTE=gonzales56;321377]
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post

    I like to look at the evidence and stick to that evidence, and the evidence points to hominids and multiple hominids constantly migrating, drifting apart, drift back together and breeding.
    amen to that

    peking man(circa 250,000--750,000ybp) and the shovel shaped incisor come to mind------30 odd years ago, the anti "out of africa" crowd from china used the incisor evidence(common in peking man and modern chinese people---not so in negroid nor caucasion)--- as evidence that some of their ancestors had been there for hundreds of thousands of years----add in the 1000-1300 ccm brain size for what is currently classified as Homo erectus pekinensis(much larger than most other homo erectus)-and we are closing in on a likelyhood of "hominids and multiple hominids constantly migrating, drifting apart, drift back together and breeding."

    and
    many, inculcated in the current consensus view, do take a dogmatic defensiveness to skepticism of that "consensus"

    as/re capitalization----------
    oops
    first my mother, and now my professor of rhetoric spouse have tried to get me to use capitalization and punctuation in a more accepted manner
    (i actually like it when she corrects my use of our shared language)
    maybe
    that's why after receiving a broad education in the liberal arts and sciences and a couple degrees, i chose to sculpt and build eco-friendly buildings(I call it "outsmarting inanimate objects")-------------but i still study science as an advocation or hobby---ergo, my showing up here

    when studying at the university(long ago and far away) i found myself standing in front of the neanderthal exhibit at the museum of natural history delivering a lecture on why the exhibit was "all wrong" ----It portrayed them as rather stooped brutish savages----

    really prodigeous memories in the homo sapiens neanderthalensis -----a virtually unchanged stone culture for over 60,000 years-----------sapiens sapiens tool kit changes faster and faster until now, from generation to generation the changes are almost mind boggling---------from horses to jets and the pony express to email -and the changes seem to be increasing in frequency almost exponentially

    so, i'm part neanderthall---yeh, most likely, ok
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post

    as for the realm of science fiction : isn't it a fact that all pre-100,000 old H.sapiens fossils are found in Africa ?
    It is not a fact...

    I posted this fossil and mainstream article earlier (which is all a lie).
    160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans

    Now lets look at the truth. Lets look at who and what this so called "anatomically modern african human" really is and who its hominid family is and where they come from.


    Greece: 450-200 kya

    Spain: Atapuerca 800-400 kya
    who says it's a lie ? are you qualified to state that specimens usually identified as H.heidelbergensis or H.antecessor now all of a sudden become H.sapiens ?
    just because you dearly want to disbelieve it doesn't make it a lie
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Exactly what does that 1-4% neanderthal DNA consists of in modern humans to actually say it is different? We share a large percentage with the rest of the creatures on this planet and from my understanding is that science sees it as rearranging of genes is what makes the difference in appearances from one species to another.


    Between modern humans we share 99.9% so if Eurasians share 99.7% with Neanderthals and Africans is even less then 4%, what is the difference between Africans and other Humans living on different continents?
    Barbi, the 99.7%+ (aka 1-4%) shows up in multiple areas/locations depending on each individual. It is also known that at least 50-95%+ of modern Eurasian and Oceanian HLA alleles (immune system genes) derive from our Neandertal and Denisovan ancestors. These genes are also found in some Africans.


    The Shaping of Modern Human Immune Systems by Multiregional Admixture with Archaic Humans
    Yes, but how is that stronger evidence for admixture than it is for common ancestry? Probably the 4% are identified as those genes our common ancestor didn't have.




    Modern humans do not share 99.9% of their DNA with other modern humans.

    Concerning your question about the genetic differences, percentage wise, between San/Yoruba Africans and humans on other continents, it is at least between 1-10% depending on who and where one tests. It is simply math really... An African and a Malaysian cannot share 99%+ of their DNA with each other if the Malaysian has 6% more Denisovan and 4% more Neandertal DNA than the African. Of course there are a lot of variables and possibilities one has to account for, such as the fact that humans from Eurasia have, time after time, migrated into African populations, thus adding their DNA into those populations over and over again... One would also have to consider possibilities such as the possibility that when some humans migrated deep into Africa other hominids were there and breeding took place.
    At the very least, we can be certain there was no substantial population of neanderthals in Africa, or else why would Sub-Sahara Africa be the only place their genes are not expressed?

    How do you reconcile your idea with that fact?

    I agree that all human DNA is not totally homogenous, though. I just don't see why it's so important for you to believe that humanity was specifically caused by mixing just what was there instead of evolving something new that wasn't there? However, if your name is any indication, I've read some cultural philosophers from central America that suggest cross-breeding among different cultures was the cause of come great cultures like Egypt. I think it helps to reconcile people with the history of their region, and it could be true for all I know, but that doesn't mean everything has to have been caused that way. Humanity has a lot of traits not found in any proto-human. That suggests true originality in the origin, not just remixing.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Yes, but how is that stronger evidence for admixture than it is for common ancestry? Probably the 4% are identified as those genes our common ancestor didn't have.
    Some have tried to confuse what Green and company mean by 1-4% but, it is easy to understand where and how they get this figure. What they did was look at neandertal dna and modern human dna from differing populations. Where the DNA was a match with all modern humans, they did not count that but, when neandertals and eurasia DNA matched, and african dna did not, they put that DNA into the 1-4% everyone discusses. This does not mean that africans do not have neandertal or denisovan dna, they do.

    One could easily ask, "why do some eurasians have 3% more neandertal dna than some other eurasians?" just as you have asked "why do some eurasians have 1-4% more neandertal dna than africans?".... Any and all admixture, at any point in time, could or could not be carried down within the generations to follow, and this is why modern humans have gene coalescent times that wildly differ (especially between modern populations). It also depends on the rate that one population diverges or the rate and way in which multiple populations mingle and mate.

    Example... Not every Mexican is the same percentage native or European. Neither is every mexican of one native tribe or one european nation. The percentages vary wildly and so does their DNA. Now, if they were to go through a serious population restriction and only a few Mexicans found in south mexico were to survive, then 10,000-20,000 years passed and they died, and then another 30,000 years passed and humans compared the mexican dna to their own, it would be amazing to find any of the mexican specific bottle necked and reduced DNA in them, let alone all over the world. However, This is exactly what we find with Neandertals though. We find that only a fraction of their genetic population diversity survived the bottle neck but, their specific bottle necked and population reduced dna is still found throughout the worlds population even 30,000+ years after they themselves died.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    At the very least, we can be certain there was no substantial population of neanderthals in Africa, or else why would Sub-Sahara Africa be the only place their genes are not expressed?

    How do you reconcile your idea with that fact?

    I agree that all human DNA is not totally homogenous, though. I just don't see why it's so important for you to believe that humanity was specifically caused by mixing just what was there instead of evolving something new that wasn't there? However, if your name is any indication, I've read some cultural philosophers from central America that suggest cross-breeding among different cultures was the cause of come great cultures like Egypt. I think it helps to reconcile people with the history of their region, and it could be true for all I know, but that doesn't mean everything has to have been caused that way. Humanity has a lot of traits not found in any proto-human. That suggests true originality in the origin, not just remixing.
    Neandertal genes are in africa. What makes it even more damaging to the out of africa and africa origins only theory is that the genes that are there, the genes we can see, are not due to great samples of neandertals and denisovans at their peak of genetic diversity but, just a few neandertals and a denisovan that went through a server bottleneck and whom were reduced in diversity and genes from even their own populations.

    It would be nice if they could get DNA from Skhul V in isreal.

    One also has to keep in mind that there are no "atomically correct modern humans" (whatever that means) anywhere in the world 100,000 years ago. In fact, there are none even 50,000 years ago. The first, I believe, are the cro-magnons in europe. It is the cro-magnons that are credited with the great leaps and growth in humanity.

    We know that cro-magnons are a hybrid hominid. The only evidence of hominids we have on the planet before cro-mognons is that of so called "archaic" hominids. So we are left with either believing god created them, they evolved in africa all on their own and lived there for 150,000 but forgot to leave any evidence they were there, or they are the product of multiple hominids breeding together (which the DNA shows).
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 26th, 2012 at 03:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    curious that both cro-magnons (early homo sapiens sapiens) and homo sapiens neanderthalensis(who co-existed in europe) both had larger brain cases (cm-1600cc, n-1500cc)than current modern humans(1300cc)
    Last edited by sculptor; April 26th, 2012 at 05:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post

    as for the realm of science fiction : isn't it a fact that all pre-100,000 old H.sapiens fossils are found in Africa ?
    It is not a fact...

    I posted this fossil and mainstream article earlier (which is all a lie).
    160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans

    Now lets look at the truth. Lets look at who and what this so called "anatomically modern african human" really is and who its hominid family is and where they come from.


    Greece: 450-200 kya

    Spain: Atapuerca 800-400 kya
    who says it's a lie ? are you qualified to state that specimens usually identified as H.heidelbergensis or H.antecessor now all of a sudden become H.sapiens ?

    You are using the term h sapiens as if it does not apply to h heidelbergensis, h. antecessor or even h neandertal for that matter, and it does. They are all "archaic" homo sapiens, and the name given to them after "homo sapiens" usually has nothing more to do with anything else other than where they were found.

    Concerning the lie about the archaic hominid in africa being sold as an atomically modern human, everyone now knows that is a lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    You are using the term h sapiens as if it does not apply to h heidelbergensis, h. antecessor or even h neandertal for that matter, and it does. They are all "archaic" homo sapiens, and the name given to them after "homo sapiens" usually has nothing more to do with anything else other than where they were found.
    if you're going to change the definition of H.sapiens to suit your own needs, then you can obviously reach any conclusion that you wish to arrive at
    this sort of reasoning would almost imply that there's only been 1 species of Homo from about 2 million years onwards, something that is at odds with current anthropological thinking
    Lynx_Fox and Strange like this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Concerning the lie about the archaic hominid in africa being sold as an atomically modern human, everyone now knows that is a lie.
    This is the point where I lost the last bit of respect for you. Vague, emotional, faulty, absolutist statements are from the toolkit of charlatans.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    You are using the term h sapiens as if it does not apply to h heidelbergensis, h. antecessor or even h neandertal for that matter, and it does. They are all "archaic" homo sapiens, and the name given to them after "homo sapiens" usually has nothing more to do with anything else other than where they were found.
    if you're going to change the definition of H.sapiens to suit your own needs, then you can obviously reach any conclusion that you wish to arrive at
    this sort of reasoning would almost imply that there's only been 1 species of Homo from about 2 million years onwards, something that is at odds with current anthropological thinking

    "Relating to or being an early form or subspecies of Homo sapiens"

    Neanderthal man:
    "a member of an extinct subspecies of powerful, physically robust humans, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, that inhabited Europe andwestern and central Asia c100,000–40,000 b.c."

    "a hominid (Homo neanderthalensis syn H. sapiens neanderthalensis) known from skeletal remains in Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia"

    Now, do Neandertal relate to Us in anyway? Of course they do, they are our ancestors. In fact, they and the denisovans are the only hominids we are absolutely sure of, 100%, that are the ancestors of modern humans. No other hominid, at this point in time, can have that claim made about them or for them, and all claims made about other hominids and their roll/s concerning who is or isn't a part of our evolutionary / ancestry process, are nothing more than assumptions.

    You see, you keep assuming that we, modern humans, homo sapiens, were just chilling in africa and eurasia with all these different species, the neandertals and denisovans being two of those in your mind but, our anatomically "perfect" selves are not found in the fossil record, we are missing, we are not there, until we get to cro-magnon mans remains around 30,000 years ago. What's in the record though is a slew of Neandertals in eurasia who began evolving, breeding and looking more and more like what we do today.. So much in fact, that Skhul V in isreal is called the earliest modern human by many, when, it is a neandertal. There are a slew of neandertals who had evolved, bred and began producing more and more modern looking humans, and this is clearly seen in the fossil record.

    Again, what we do not see in the fossil record at this time, in no country or continent, is this anatomically "perfect" modern human that so many of you keep talking about. In a lot of ways it is like talking to people who believe in bigfoot.

    "Modern humans evolved all on there own and came from africa!" OK, when did this happen and where are they in the fossil record? Can you give me just one? Can you give me anything?

    Modern humans killed off all the other hominids, uhhmmm, we mean bred to at least 2 of them, on their way to conquering the world! Really? That is a cool story.. Wait a minute..They bred to two different species? Not to creative, huh? They should have bred to a bird and a horse because, it would have been awesome if they would have made themselves into flying centaurs! Again though (jokes aside), were is the proof, the archaeological evidence?

    I claim, yes I do, that neandertals are archaic homo sapiens because they are the ancestors of modern humans. That is kind of how it works.... However, you are debating me, based on an idea, that modern humans existed 100-150 kya, which you have no proof of, and that these, so far, fictitious modern humans you speak of, came from africa, traveled throughout the world and are our ancestors? Am I correct? And because you hold this faith, these beliefs, these thoughts in a thus far make believe modern human roaming the world 100-150 kya, you think that we are contemporary to hominids from that same time period and not the product of those hominids, and therefore, they cannot be part of our family? Am I correct again?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    You see, you keep assuming that we, modern humans, homo sapiens, were just chilling in africa and eurasia with all these different species, the neandertals and denisovans being two of those in your mind but, our anatomically "perfect" selves are not found in the fossil record, we are missing, we are not there, until we get to cro-magnon mans remains around 30,000 years ago.
    Bunk. There's all kinds of remains of modern humans before 30K BP, in India&Australia (~60K BP) and Eastern Africa up to 180K BP. It's in the fossil record and its footprint in genetic studies.

    It also seems clear that after modern humans left Africa, there was further development of several subspecies that later remixed and become part of the extremely narrow genetic differences in todays humans.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture01669.html
    Out-of-Africa, the peopling of continents and islands: tracing uniparental gene trees across the map
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Concerning the lie about the archaic hominid in africa being sold as an atomically modern human, everyone now knows that is a lie.
    This is the point where I lost the last bit of respect for you. Vague, emotional, faulty, absolutist statements are from the toolkit of charlatans.
    Ignorance is understandable, however, being ignorantly and angrily defiant in order to protect an ignorant belief or faith in something is something else completely different.

    It is just a fact that the hominid that was sold by the mainstream as an anatomically modern human has been proven to be utterly false and wrong. The hominid in question has be reclassified, and named, homo sapiens idaltu. It was a nice try and attempt at lying to the common people of the world but, it failed... With that said, it was also kind of the scientific community to name the hominid "homo sapiens idaltu" after they exposed the lie because the hominid was/is not a completely new subspecies.

    Now you have no excuse to remain ignorant concerning this hominid, however, you are free to remain upset/angry, that is your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You see, you keep assuming that we, modern humans, homo sapiens, were just chilling in africa and eurasia with all these different species, the neandertals and denisovans being two of those in your mind but, our anatomically "perfect" selves are not found in the fossil record, we are missing, we are not there, until we get to cro-magnon mans remains around 30,000 years ago.
    Bunk. There's all kinds of remains of modern humans before 30K BP, in India&Australia (~60K BP) and Eastern Africa up to 180K BP. It's in the fossil record and its footprint in genetic studies.

    It also seems clear that after modern humans left Africa, there was further development of several subspecies that later remixed and become part of the extremely narrow genetic differences in todays humans.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture01669.html
    Out-of-Africa, the peopling of continents and islands: tracing uniparental gene trees across the map
    Fox, your very first link is to a paper discussing the hurto (now called: homo sapiens idaltu) skull. .. Now, could this hominid, or those in the same immediate family as this hominid, be one of our hominid ancestors? It could be, and then again, it could not be.. You see, the idea that because a hominid is in africa, it must be related to us, and if a hominid is found in eurasia, then it is not related to us, is an assumption that is highly foolish and highly ignorant.

    Perhaps it is possible that this hominid is part of a family of hominids that bred to other hominids, neandertals included, and that is what kicked off the birth of modern humans but, we just do not know.

    Homo spaiens idaltu hominids are believed, by most scientist, to be, come from or related to homo heidelbergensis.

    Concerning DNA, there is no way of knowing where the genetics/genes are from land wise. Genetic scientist simply give way to, and parrot, any given prevailing theories as to an "origin location" spewed by anthropologist and archaeological. With that said though, our genes/DNA are diverse and they trace back to multiple hominids, multiple time periods and multiple regions.. It is just unfortunate that sympathy, pandering, ignorance, hatred or racism keeps trying to push the idea that modern humans (We) are an africa product and not the product of multiple hominids from multiple regions.

    I will ask again... And it should be a simple thing to produce.. I want to see modern humans (Us) in the fossil record, In Africa, 100-150 kya. Modern Humans (Us) living only in africa for 100 kya or so should (have) produce a treasure of fossils, at least just as abundant as our eurasian ancestor fossils have.

    You see, this fantasy that modern humans evolved solely in africa, or any continent for that matter, is a wrongheaded one.

    If homo erectus and homo ergaster bred, then how can someone rightfully ignore one of them and declare that modern humans are the decedents of just one of them? How can one declare that about any of the hominids concerning our evolutionary path and genetic origins? And when we answer those questions, then the next question is, why do some try to X out every other hominid in the world except for African hominids? Why do they do this?

    It is just a fact, an indisputable fact, that we, modern humans, are not the product of a single direct line of hominids that evolved from one hominid to the next until they produced Us. We, modern humans, are an upside down fork who are the product, who were created, who evolved, by way of multiple hominids, from multiple continents, into a single hominid - Us - Modern Humans.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 28th, 2012 at 04:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Fox, your very first link is to a paper discussing the hurto (now called: homo sapiens idaltu) skull
    And? So? Homo sapiens idaltu is a subspecies only found in Africa. Which makes your insistence on providing evidence of modern humans somewhat silly.

    There is no doubt that the fossil record shows and strongly suggests that homo heildelbergensis is a Eurasian hominid that found its way into africa.
    I must have missed the link to evidence supporting that claim. And even if you do provide it, does it mean they evolved there? Or traveled there? Obviously all these subspecies of modern humans were capable of moving around.

    You see, this fantasy that modern humans evolved solely in africa, or any continent for that matter, is a sick one.
    No one that I can see is arguing that. In fact several of us have specifically mentioned further mixing and with local subspecies and reintegration which accounts for the minor differences among modern humans. It's also clear your use of the term "our anatomically "perfect" selves " is a strawman.

    ...so should (have) produce a treasure of fossils, at least just as abundant as our eurasian ancestor fossils have....
    Why? Decomposition, preditor density, is higher in warm regions. It's not clear at all that tropical regions should have an equal rates of fossil preservation as colder regions--quite the opposite seems likely.

    It is just unfortunate that sympathy, pandering, ignorance, hatred or racism keeps trying to push the idea that modern humans (We) are an africa product and not the product of multiple hominids from multiple regions.
    Who's doing that? No one that I can see.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And? So? Homo sapiens idaltu is a subspecies only found in Africa. Which makes your insistence on providing evidence of modern humans somewhat silly.

    I must have missed the link to evidence supporting that claim. And even if you do provide it, does it mean they evolved there? Or traveled there? Obviously all these subspecies of modern humans were capable of moving around.

    No one that I can see is arguing that. In fact several of us have specifically mentioned further mixing and with local subspecies and reintegration which accounts for the minor differences among modern humans. It's also clear your use of the term "our anatomically "perfect" selves " is a strawman.
    Idaltu is not "a subspecies only found in africa."

    Anatomically, Idaltu is a heidelbergensis/neandertal that has some features that are like our own. However, this is nothing new. The Greek find I posted earlier, is 100,000s of years older than Idaltu, and it has the same exact features, including the ones that are like our own. In fact, anatomically, it is very hard to tell the difference between them but, one cannot say or declare that modern human features prove Idaltu is a subspecies or a new species when eurasian finds, like the Greek Skull, show the same archaic human and modern human features while pre-dating Idaltu by 100,000s of years.

    Now either the Greek Skull and the Hurto Skull are a continuous line or they are the product of roughly the same hominids crossing to each other at different times..... Either way, the fossil record, and DNA, shows that it was crosses between hominids that produced modern human features and ultimately modern humans.

    This is why the fossil record has archaic hominids in eurasia and africa that have modern features spanning 100,000s of years, and it is why the fossil record cannot produce a unique and single line of hominids that evolved into modern humans all on their own, and then lived as anatomically correct modern humans for a 100,000 in africa, and africa alone. This fairy-tale, one line hominid, 100,000 years of anatomically correct modern humans in africa, and africa alone, does not exist. The "out of africa" theory is wrong.

    Again though, the idea or statement that Idaltu is unique or a new subspecies, is not true. It is pretty clear that Idaltu is the product of crosses between well known hominids. We find this in the fossil record well before Idaltu and well after Idaltu. These type of crosses and products are nothing new to Eurasia or Africa.

    Concerning the idea that mixing between hominids created some of our differences, it is just the wrong idea/theory. We, modern humans, do not pre-date those hominids nor do we predate them crossing with each other. All of our features, not just some of them, are due to them crossing and breeding with each other over 100,000s of years.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 29th, 2012 at 05:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Honestly gonzales, post some links or your parts are going to be pruned and moved to pseuscience....you've made numerous hand waves and broad declarations without hardy any links to credible evidence.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Concerning the lie about the archaic hominid in africa being sold as an atomically modern human, everyone now knows that is a lie.
    This is the point where I lost the last bit of respect for you. Vague, emotional, faulty, absolutist statements are from the toolkit of charlatans.
    Ignorance is understandable, however, being ignorantly and angrily defiant in order to protect an ignorant belief or faith in something is something else completely different.

    It is just a fact that the hominid that was sold by the mainstream as an anatomically modern human has been proven to be utterly false and wrong. The hominid in question has be reclassified, and named, homo sapiens idaltu. It was a nice try and attempt at lying to the common people of the world but, it failed... With that said, it was also kind of the scientific community to name the hominid "homo sapiens idaltu" after they exposed the lie because the hominid was/is not a completely new subspecies.

    Now you have no excuse to remain ignorant concerning this hominid, however, you are free to remain upset/angry, that is your choice.
    It sounds like all you're going on about is one specific case (probably out of many not false cases) of an archaic hominid that didn't pan out. Most scientific theories are based on more than one find. If that evidence were the sole basis, then I could see your point. However if it is not, then I think you should let the point rest. The fact one researcher got overanxious doesn't mean the findings of all the other researchers were part of a big "lie".

    You sound a lot more angry than Mr Galt.

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Yes, but how is that stronger evidence for admixture than it is for common ancestry? Probably the 4% are identified as those genes our common ancestor didn't have.
    Some have tried to confuse what Green and company mean by 1-4% but, it is easy to understand where and how they get this figure. What they did was look at neandertal dna and modern human dna from differing populations. Where the DNA was a match with all modern humans, they did not count that but, when neandertals and eurasia DNA matched, and african dna did not, they put that DNA into the 1-4% everyone discusses. This does not mean that africans do not have neandertal or denisovan dna, they do.
    That is not how they arrived at it. The paper is here:

    A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome


    If you hit Alt+e and then choose Find, and enter "Population divergence of Neandertals and modern humans", that will take you to the relevant section. I'll go ahead and quote some of it here, but it is best if you read the whole section.


    To analyze the relationship of the Neandertals to a more diverse set of modern humans, we repeated the analysis above using the genome sequences of the French, Han, Papuan, Yoruba, and San individuals that we generated (SOM Text 9). Strikingly, no comparison within Eurasia (Papuan-French-Han) or within Africa (Yoruba-San) shows significant skews in
    D
    (|
    Z
    | < 2 SD). However, all comparisons of non-Africans and Africans show that the Neandertal is closer to the non-African (
    D
    from 3.8% to 5.3%, |
    Z
    | > 7.0 SD) (
    Table 4
    ). Thus, analyses of present-day humans consistently show that Neandertals share significantly more derived alleles with non-Africans than with Africans, whereas they share equal amounts of derived alleles when compared either to individuals within Eurasia or to individuals within Africa.
    Direction of gene flow. A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that Neandertals exchanged genes with the ancestors of non-Africans. To determine the direction of gene flow consistent with the data, we took advantage of the fact that non-Africans are more distantly related to San than to Yoruba (7375) (Table 4). This is reflected in the fact that D(P, San, Q, chimpanzee) is 1.47 to 1.68 times greater than D(P, Yoruba, Q, chimpanzee), where P and Q are non-Africans (SOM Text 15). Under the hypothesis of modern human to Neandertal gene flow, D(P, San, Neandertal, chimpanzee) should be greater than D(P, Yoruba, Neandertal, chimpanzee) by the same amount, because the deviation of the D statistics is due to Neandertals inheriting a proportion of ancestry from a non-African-like population Q. Empirically, however, the ratio is significantly smaller (1.00 to 1.03, P << 0.0002) (SOM Text 15). Thus, all or almost all of the gene flow detected was from Neandertals into modern humans


    I underlined the part where they draw their conclusion. Apparently the difference is too large to explain from random mutation after the birth of humanity. I mean, it's just plain too unlikely that we could have all started out as a species with the same amount of Neanderthal DNA in us, and then one group just randomly happened to breed 4% more of it out of them while the other groups retained theirs. So the probable explanation is that that 4% came afterward.

    I can't say for sure how it relates to your theory of cross breeding to sapiens. The problem with this theory of yours is that we'd have to wonder why not to apply it to absolutely every evolution occurrence? Shouldn't hominids then have to be the result of gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and orangutans getting together? Because according to you, that's the only way any new species ever emerges, right? It always has to be a mix? I don't quite grasp how this mix can end up the way it does: with a species that has traits none of the mixed parties had, but I guess I'm just being "ignorant" and "angry", right?



    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Honestly gonzales, post some links or your parts are going to be pruned and moved to pseuscience....you've made numerous hand waves and broad declarations without hardy any links to credible evidence.
    I have been posting links but, I will post a few tonight and more for you tomorrow, if that is OK with you?

    "Oldest Modern Humans" (I do not like the term but, solid hominid)

    This hominid, or any hominid outside of africa, being transitional between hominids and Us, cannot exist if one believes in an out of africa theory for modern humans, but this hominid does exist.

    Greece Skull / hominid 450,000-200,000 kya
    "The classification of the specimen is discussed and it is suggested that a grade system within Homo spaiens should be erected. The Petralonafossil would be allocated to Homo sapiens grade 1 rather than to Homo erectus or to a subspecies of Homo sapiens."

    The same applies to this hominid. It cannot have anatomically modern human features if, when, and according to the out of africa theory, anatomically modern humans had not even existed yet. You just cant have something in eurasia that is intermediate between archiac hominids and anatomically modern humans at a time or place when it is said that we did not exist yet.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 30th, 2012 at 04:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    That is not how they arrived at it. The paper is here:

    A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome


    If you hit Alt+e and then choose Find, and enter "Population divergence of Neandertals and modern humans", that will take you to the relevant section. I'll go ahead and quote some of it here, but it is best if you read the whole section.


    To analyze the relationship of the Neandertals to a more diverse set of modern humans, we repeated the analysis above using the genome sequences of the French, Han, Papuan, Yoruba, and San individuals that we generated (SOM Text 9). Strikingly, no comparison within Eurasia (Papuan-French-Han) or within Africa (Yoruba-San) shows significant skews in
    D
    (|
    Z
    | < 2 SD). However, all comparisons of non-Africans and Africans show that the Neandertal is closer to the non-African (
    D
    from 3.8% to 5.3%, |
    Z
    | > 7.0 SD) (
    Table 4
    ). Thus, analyses of present-day humans consistently show that Neandertals share significantly more derived alleles with non-Africans than with Africans, whereas they share equal amounts of derived alleles when compared either to individuals within Eurasia or to individuals within Africa.
    Direction of gene flow. A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that Neandertals exchanged genes with the ancestors of non-Africans. To determine the direction of gene flow consistent with the data, we took advantage of the fact that non-Africans are more distantly related to San than to Yoruba (7375) (Table 4). This is reflected in the fact that D(P, San, Q, chimpanzee) is 1.47 to 1.68 times greater than D(P, Yoruba, Q, chimpanzee), where P and Q are non-Africans (SOM Text 15). Under the hypothesis of modern human to Neandertal gene flow, D(P, San, Neandertal, chimpanzee) should be greater than D(P, Yoruba, Neandertal, chimpanzee) by the same amount, because the deviation of the D statistics is due to Neandertals inheriting a proportion of ancestry from a non-African-like population Q. Empirically, however, the ratio is significantly smaller (1.00 to 1.03, P << 0.0002) (SOM Text 15). Thus, all or almost all of the gene flow detected was from Neandertals into modern humans


    I underlined the part where they draw their conclusion. Apparently the difference is too large to explain from random mutation after the birth of humanity. I mean, it's just plain too unlikely that we could have all started out as a species with the same amount of Neanderthal DNA in us, and then one group just randomly happened to breed 4% more of it out of them while the other groups retained theirs. So the probable explanation is that that 4% came afterward.

    I can't say for sure how it relates to your theory of cross breeding to sapiens. The problem with this theory of yours is that we'd have to wonder why not to apply it to absolutely every evolution occurrence? Shouldn't hominids then have to be the result of gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and orangutans getting together? Because according to you, that's the only way any new species ever emerges, right? It always has to be a mix? I don't quite grasp how this mix can end up the way it does: with a species that has traits none of the mixed parties had, but I guess I'm just being "ignorant" and "angry", right?




    Actually, anyone can read, see and then know that even africans have genes derived from neandertals, and that eurasians just have more.

    "Thus, analyses of present-day humans consistently show that Neandertals share significantly more derived alleles with non-Africans than with Africans"

    The "significantly more" is the 1-4% they, and everyone else (who understands), is talking about. Eurasians and africans both have genes derived from neandertals, eurasians just have more. I posted a paper (above) by the same people you did concerning just our immune system. I recommend you read it. Perhaps that will open you up a bit.

    As these genomes are being processed (I think they have now gotten up to 60% of the neandertals genome) they are studying the genes (very slow process), and the handful of genes they have studied (at least began studying), some speech genes and immune genes, they are finding a lot of links ( a lot more than anyone would have guessed).

    As time passes and they look into more and more genes, I am pretty confident they will continue to find more information out that will continue to shock some people (just as the immune system has).

    Again though, I ask you to look at the parts of the immune system they have studied and their findings on that.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 30th, 2012 at 04:53 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I can't say for sure how it relates to your theory of cross breeding to sapiens. The problem with this theory of yours is that we'd have to wonder why not to apply it to absolutely every evolution occurrence? Shouldn't hominids then have to be the result of gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and orangutans getting together? Because according to you, that's the only way any new species ever emerges, right? It always has to be a mix? I don't quite grasp how this mix can end up the way it does: with a species that has traits none of the mixed parties had

    As long as there is no need for a "male" and "female" to reproduce, the single line evolutionary theory works. However, the minute there is a need for a "male" and "female" to produce offspring, species will not only drift apart, they will also end up drifting back together, and breed, time and time again. Perhaps how often this occurs, and with what species, is found in how fast mutations occur and/or how fast they expand, drift and then find/come back in contact with each other again (and it does not have to be directly, it can be indirectly through multiple parties as well).

    Concerning modern gorillas etc.... I have no doubt in my mind that they also owe their genetic make up, not to just one single line but, to multiple genes derived from a multitude of subspecies within their family. Of course, they could have been isolated for awhile now and where and when these things occurred could be hard to see and recognize.

    Anyone who has ever studied the creation of pure bred dogs, or the mixing of them, knows how easy it is to alter the appearance of dogs, and they know how easy it is for two anatomically different dogs be bred together and create offspring that are anatomically different from their parents. In fact, this is how different breeds are created. Hominids are no different, and the offspring of two subspecies (breeds if you will) can and will create/produce different anatomical features.

    What did homo erectus breed with 400,000 years ago in order to produce anatomically modern human features in their offspring? The surely did not breed with the so called african modern human (they did not exist), and it cannot and could not be recessive genes that created those looks because the out of africa theory states that evolution started created those anatomical features, genes, in africa, just 150-200 kya.

    How does the greek skull have anatomically modern human features that the out of africa theory says does not exist, cannot exist and had not evolved yet?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    following on the reunification of diversity veign

    (wild guess?)
    certain genes are more elikely to mutate than are others
    and
    as our ancestral populations drifted apart, those mutations were unique to that "sub-species"
    then, when the 2 subspecies interbred, the mutations within a single gene combined to create a new shared mutation
    ------
    perhaps, it was such a combination that led to the first "art"--- figurines, paintings, decoratice carving on utilitarian objects, etc.
    if
    if the archaelogical sampling gives an accurate picture
    then the flowering of art happened over a very short period of time
    .....
    is there any documented art predating the time when Cro-Magnon shared the European landscape with Neanderthals circa 35kybp
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    following on the reunification of diversity veign

    (wild guess?)
    certain genes are more elikely to mutate than are others
    and
    as our ancestral populations drifted apart, those mutations were unique to that "sub-species"
    then, when the 2 subspecies interbred, the mutations within a single gene combined to create a new shared mutation
    ------
    perhaps, it was such a combination that led to the first "art"--- figurines, paintings, decoratice carving on utilitarian objects, etc.
    if
    if the archaelogical sampling gives an accurate picture
    then the flowering of art happened over a very short period of time
    .....
    is there any documented art predating the time when Cro-Magnon shared the European landscape with Neanderthals circa 35kybp
    Yes, scientist believe (if the dates hold up) that they have found cave art/paintings from neandertals in europe some 43,000-42,000 kya.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    What did homo erectus breed with 400,000 years ago in order to produce anatomically modern human features in their offspring? The surely did not breed with the so called african modern human (they did not exist), and it cannot and could not be recessive genes that created those looks because the out of africa theory states that evolution started created those anatomical features, genes, in africa, just 150-200 kya.

    How does the greek skull have anatomically modern human features that the out of africa theory says does not exist, cannot exist and had not evolved yet?
    I think you're mixing theories. Out of Africa is a different issue than single line vs. multi-line-mixing. We could be single line and have evolved in Australia. I guess multi-line is out if we evolved first in Africa, because there weren't any Neanderthals living there. But you see my point, right? They're separate questions. Each might have a separate answer.

    Anyway, I'm also not trying to run against the mix-for-success theory of ethnic progression. Certainly mixing racial groups introduces more possible genes into the pool, which can then be selected for or against, possibly leading to better results. I just don't like to see politics mix too closely with physical sciences. It's very dangerous - especially in biology.


    Also I see no reason why the origin of homo-sapiens has to be "special". Must Neanderthals also, then, be a mix of Donosovans and Erectus? Should Erectus be a mix of Heidelbergensis and Ergastor? What basis do we use to choose which ones are mixes and which ones are originals? If they're all mixes, then where would we get any variety to begin with? Wouldn't the dominant genes prevail and eliminate all the diversity?


    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    I underlined the part where they draw their conclusion. Apparently the difference is too large to explain from random mutation after the birth of humanity. I mean, it's just plain too unlikely that we could have all started out as a species with the same amount of Neanderthal DNA in us, and then one group just randomly happened to breed 4% more of it out of them while the other groups retained theirs. So the probable explanation is that that 4% came afterward.

    I can't say for sure how it relates to your theory of cross breeding to sapiens. The problem with this theory of yours is that we'd have to wonder why not to apply it to absolutely every evolution occurrence? Shouldn't hominids then have to be the result of gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and orangutans getting together? Because according to you, that's the only way any new species ever emerges, right? It always has to be a mix? I don't quite grasp how this mix can end up the way it does: with a species that has traits none of the mixed parties had, but I guess I'm just being "ignorant" and "angry", right?




    Actually, anyone can read, see and then know that even africans have genes derived from neandertals, and that eurasians just have more.

    "Thus, analyses of present-day humans consistently show that Neandertals share significantly more derived alleles with non-Africans than with Africans"

    The "significantly more" is the 1-4% they, and everyone else (who understands), is talking about. Eurasians and africans both have genes derived from neandertals, eurasians just have more. I posted a paper (above) by the same people you did concerning just our immune system. I recommend you read it. Perhaps that will open you up a bit.
    Yes. In this you and them agree. Where they disagree is that the amount of difference would not be likely to occur due to drift. Do you understand what I mean here? It's more likely for that degree of difference to occur after the species formed, rather than before it formed.

    If modern humans came from mixing Erectus, Neanderthal, Donosovan, and other species, and that is the reason why we carry Neanderthal DNA, a variance as large as they detected would not be easily explainable by way of random deviation between population groups. It only really makes sense if it were introduced after modern humans already existed.

    It doesn't refute the possibility of a multi-species origin. However, the thing the paper itself is explaining would have been the result of Neanderthal's breeding with humans who were already fully homosapien.



    As time passes and they look into more and more genes, I am pretty confident they will continue to find more information out that will continue to shock some people (just as the immune system has).

    Again though, I ask you to look at the parts of the immune system they have studied and their findings on that.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think you're mixing theories. Out of Africa is a different issue than single line vs. multi-line-mixing. We could be single line and have evolved in Australia. I guess multi-line is out if we evolved first in Africa, because there weren't any Neanderthals living there. But you see my point, right? They're separate questions. Each might have a separate answer.

    Anyway, I'm also not trying to run against the mix-for-success theory of ethnic progression. Certainly mixing racial groups introduces more possible genes into the pool, which can then be selected for or against, possibly leading to better results. I just don't like to see politics mix too closely with physical sciences. It's very dangerous - especially in biology.


    Also I see no reason why the origin of homo-sapiens has to be "special". Must Neanderthals also, then, be a mix of Donosovans and Erectus? Should Erectus be a mix of Heidelbergensis and Ergastor? What basis do we use to choose which ones are mixes and which ones are originals? If they're all mixes, then where would we get any variety to begin with? Wouldn't the dominant genes prevail and eliminate all the diversity?


    Yes. In this you and them agree. Where they disagree is that the amount of difference would not be likely to occur due to drift. Do you understand what I mean here? It's more likely for that degree of difference to occur after the species formed, rather than before it formed.

    If modern humans came from mixing Erectus, Neanderthal, Donosovan, and other species, and that is the reason why we carry Neanderthal DNA, a variance as large as they detected would not be easily explainable by way of random deviation between population groups. It only really makes sense if it were introduced after modern humans already existed.

    It doesn't refute the possibility of a multi-species origin. However, the thing the paper itself is explaining would have been the result of Neanderthal's breeding with humans who were already fully homosapien.
    I think the clearest point that can be made is, "if we , modern humans, are a mix of neandertals and other hominids, so be it a hominid from africa, china, australia or planet X ( ) , then that is exactly what we are, that is exactly what modern humans are." Modern humans cannot be out of africa and part eurasian. It is impossible. Modern humans have to be partially out of africa (if the hominid is from africa) and partially out of eurasia.

    How can someone, a modern human, be the product of a cross between neandertals and other hominids and at the same time claim to have came out of africa as modern humans? How does that add up in someones mind? We, modern humans, no more came out of africa than we are from eurasians who ran into an african while playing around in north africa or chilling in eurasia.

    IMO, Neandertals themselves are more than likely the product of crosses as well. This is why their ancestors remained part of the denisovan ancestor population and our ancestor population well after our ancestors split from denisovans and denisovans ancestors split from Us.

    Concerning my personal theory on our recent ancestors, based on the dna and fossil record, I believe it is most likely that the core population of our common ancestor between Us, neandertals and denisovans lived around the Mediterranean Sea. I believe it is highly likely that they would have been the product of hominid crosses themselves, and I believe their population was large, vast, very genetically diverse and spread from the mediterranean into northern europe, africa, across the middle east and into china.

    I believe it is likely denisovans developed in the east of this population, another hominid developed south in africa of this population (perhaps homo sapiens idaltu) and neandertals developed in the center of this population (this would also explain why and how neandertals remained part of every population around them while everyone else around them (to the east and south) split into different populations.

    I suspect that the hominids in africa bred to other hominids in africa and hominids in asia bred to other hominids, and some of these genes radiated back and forth between all. I believe, at some point, some hominids on the outskirts bred with neandertal, either in the middle east, asia or africa, and it kick started our, modern humans, beginning. I believe the cross, the product, Us, modern humans, were somehow a better cross this time, somehow different, and then we slowly began to genetically dominate until our ancestor hominids had to give way, one way or another (this includes breeding, again, to other hominids as well).

    That is just my general idea/theory on what could have taken place.
    Last edited by gonzales56; May 2nd, 2012 at 06:55 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    How can someone, a modern human, be the product of a cross between neandertals and other hominids and at the same time claim to have came out of africa as modern humans? How does that add up in someones mind?
    When you look at the proportional alleles and not from the perspective of arguing false dichotomies it's pretty easy. Why are you taking this position anyhow?


    I believe the cross, the product, Us, modern humans, were somehow a better cross this time, somehow different, and then we slowly began to genetically dominate until our ancestor hominids had to give way, one way or another (this includes breeding, again, to other hominids as well).
    The huge genitic diversity in Africa, except for some particular genes only found in Europe and Asian populations argues strongly against this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The problem I'm having agreeing with you is that I would expect crossing lineages to prevent or limit mutation, rather than encourage it. The place where we see the greatest divergence in mammal species is Australia. The reason (apparently) being that the creatures there couldn't mate back into the populations they came out of.

    I could have a kind of skewed view of how this happens, but I think if you want to cause mutation in a species, the idea is to filter some of the dominant genes out and start expressing the recessive genes. And usually the way to get those to express is to mate two organisms that have the same recessive gene. Two different sub-species mating probably wouldn't have the same recessive genes. You'd reinforce the dominant genes instead. Now usually the dominant genes are the best, most robust genes (hence the reason they became dominant to begin with.) But they're not new genes.

    However, I also don't want to be simplistic. Maybe it's both. Mix two subspecies together into a community, send that community off on its own, and now you've got a wider pool of recessive genes that will occasionally manifest when pairs of mates meet up that have them. Selection can do its thing and kill off whatever it doesn't like...... but that last group would be isolated from the rest. Why not migrate to Africa and have the last stage happen there?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    At what point do we determine when and where we begin to classify as now as a "modern Human" in history?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    How can someone, a modern human, be the product of a cross between neandertals and other hominids and at the same time claim to have came out of africa as modern humans? How does that add up in someones mind?
    When you look at the proportional alleles and not from the perspective of arguing false dichotomies it's pretty easy. Why are you taking this position anyhow?


    I believe the cross, the product, Us, modern humans, were somehow a better cross this time, somehow different, and then we slowly began to genetically dominate until our ancestor hominids had to give way, one way or another (this includes breeding, again, to other hominids as well).
    The huge genitic diversity in Africa, except for some particular genes only found in Europe and Asian populations argues strongly against this.
    What are you talking about? Proportional alleles? I have a news flash for you.. To get a proportional alleles analysis you have to be able to compare two archiac human population to each other, and no one can do that because the "out of africa" hominid you are talking about is fictional at this time, it does not exist and no one has the DNA of this hominid. You have no clue what the alleles are, what they are split from, where they derived, how they came to be or even if they ever existed within a hominid from africa.

    Proportional imaginary alleles analysis is what you mean/meant.

    We already know that eurasians have constantly traveled into african and have constantly bred to africans. Even to this day, modern eurasians are constantly in africa mingling/infringing upon africans and their way of life as well as their genetic make up. A wide range of archiac and modern human genetics in africa and africans is expected, and that is because they are crosses too, and a long line of older to newer global genes found in africa and africans tell that story.

    If africa was the sole founding origins for all modern humans, and africans are pretty close to that single founding population and split time, they would not be genetically diverse, they would be the least diverse. They, in their isolation and distance in time, would have depleted most of their original genes and be the least diverse people on the planet, and the least diverse by far.
    Last edited by gonzales56; May 2nd, 2012 at 04:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The problem I'm having agreeing with you is that I would expect crossing lineages to prevent or limit mutation, rather than encourage it. The place where we see the greatest divergence in mammal species is Australia. The reason (apparently) being that the creatures there couldn't mate back into the populations they came out of.

    I could have a kind of skewed view of how this happens, but I think if you want to cause mutation in a species, the idea is to filter some of the dominant genes out and start expressing the recessive genes. And usually the way to get those to express is to mate two organisms that have the same recessive gene. Two different sub-species mating probably wouldn't have the same recessive genes. You'd reinforce the dominant genes instead. Now usually the dominant genes are the best, most robust genes (hence the reason they became dominant to begin with.) But they're not new genes.

    However, I also don't want to be simplistic. Maybe it's both. Mix two subspecies together into a community, send that community off on its own, and now you've got a wider pool of recessive genes that will occasionally manifest when pairs of mates meet up that have them. Selection can do its thing and kill off whatever it doesn't like...... but that last group would be isolated from the rest. Why not migrate to Africa and have the last stage happen there?
    Crossing does push/keep a lot of bad mutations to the back/recessive (because a bad, faulty gene/mutation needs to line up in order to show itself and crosses rarely have the same bad recessive mutations at the same exact spot in the genome in order for them to come to the front)... However, the genetic differences/diversity that is created between two populations crossing, or even multiple populations crossing, creates a new set of dominate/recessive relationships between sound, healthy and viable genes and mutations, and those new relationships correlate to more change and genetic diversity in the offspring and in the new population created from that offspring than either line/population that was initially part of the cross.

    Concerning Australia, and listening to your statement, it shows that multiple populations stayed apart from each other and that each population is far less genetically diverse than what they otherwise would be if they would have continued to bred to each other. The longer they stay isolated though, the more genes they will lose/eliminate, and eventually, they will have to grow, split some, and then cross or they to will eliminate so much of their genes that they will go extinct.

    Breeding within isolated/single populations loves to eliminate dominate and recessive genes alike. It is destructive to variety, not the great creator of it. Positive/favorable mutations that occur within an isolated population will either be destroyed, casted out or they will completely destroy or cast out the other genes. On the other hand, crosses dramatically reshuffle a populations genome, creating great variety and a whole new slew of dominate/recessive relationships and possibilities.
    Last edited by gonzales56; May 2nd, 2012 at 04:42 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I didn't expect you to address this.... the elephant in the room you continue to ignore and which overwhelmingly supports out of Africa theories.
    The huge genetic diversity in Africa, except for some particular genes only found in Europe and Asian populations argues strongly against this.
    The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
    "Africa is the source of all modern humans, but characterization of genetic variation and of relationships among populations across the continent has been enigmatic. We studied 121 African populations, four African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties. We observed high levels of mixed ancestry in most populations, reflecting historical migration events across the continent. Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies. "

    And there other studies which also support the out of Africa....
    The Expansion of mtDNA Haplogroup L3 within and out of Africa
    "Within the human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) tree, haplogroup L3 encompasses not only many sub-Saharan Africans but also all ancient non-African lineages, and its age therefore provides an upper bound for the dispersal out of Africa. An analysis of 369 complete African L3 sequences places this maximum at ∼70 ka, virtually ruling out a successful exit before 74 ka, the date of the Toba volcanic supereruption in Sumatra. The similarity of the age of L3 to its two non-African daughter haplogroups, M and N, suggests that the same process was likely responsible for both the L3 expansion in Eastern Africa and the dispersal of a small group of modern humans out of Africa to settle the rest of the world."

    The most parsimonious explanation for the results of these studies (and quite a few others), by a long shot, are that modern humans came predominantly from Africa.
    Nothing you've should or argued comes anywhere close to a valid counter explanation--and the few "factoid" you've overemphasized along with the emotional language you've used suggest you're notion is little more than pseudoscience.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    At what point do we determine when and where we begin to classify as now as a "modern Human" in history?
    Good question. I think it has to start with Us though. Modern is now, it is today, not 100,000 or 200,000 years ago. Who are we, what are we? Whatever we are, wherever every little piece of Us comes from, and when we stopped collecting the pieces / took of the training wheels and road the bike ourselves, are, IMO, the questions that need to be asked and answer in order to know when we, Us, modern humans, and Us alone, began.

    That is just my opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    At what point do we determine when and where we begin to classify as now as a "modern Human" in history?
    As there is a continuous, gradual evolution, this "line" is arbitrary and drawn at different places by different people at different times.

    Even gonzales56's suggestion that it is "us" doesn't seem particularly useful as there is so much variation in and between modern populations.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    How can someone, a modern human, be the product of a cross between neandertals and other hominids and at the same time claim to have came out of africa as modern humans? How does that add up in someones mind?
    When you look at the proportional alleles and not from the perspective of arguing false dichotomies it's pretty easy. Why are you taking this position anyhow?


    I believe the cross, the product, Us, modern humans, were somehow a better cross this time, somehow different, and then we slowly began to genetically dominate until our ancestor hominids had to give way, one way or another (this includes breeding, again, to other hominids as well).
    The huge genitic diversity in Africa, except for some particular genes only found in Europe and Asian populations argues strongly against this.
    The African dog also has hugh genetic diversity in Africa compared to all other breeds found elsewhere but we know that dogs originated in Asia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    At what point do we determine when and where we begin to classify as now as a "modern Human" in history?
    As there is a continuous, gradual evolution, this "line" is arbitrary and drawn at different places by different people at different times.

    Even gonzales56's suggestion that it is "us" doesn't seem particularly useful as there is so much variation in and between modern populations.

    Then we can't determine for sure that modern humans came out of Africa since the line is "arbitrary"? Humans went through the greatest genetic variation when we began agriculture in the Middle East so this seems more of a logical point to determine when we became modern Humans in history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    The modern domestic dog is a subspecies of the wolf, Canis lupus, and I am not familiar with suggestions that the wolf originated in Asia. Can you elaborate on this?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The modern domestic dog is a subspecies of the wolf, Canis lupus, and I am not familiar with suggestions that the wolf originated in Asia. Can you elaborate on this?
    I didn't say that the wolf originated in Asia, the domestic dog points to the middle east according to a nuclear study done in 2010 by Bridgett vonHoldt et al.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If africa was the sole founding origins for all modern humans, and africans are pretty close to that single founding population and split time, they would not be genetically diverse, they would be the least diverse. They, in their isolation and distance in time, would have depleted most of their original genes and be the least diverse people on the planet, and the least diverse by far.
    In a sufficiently large population, I don't think depletion ever, ever.... ever happens. You need too small a breeding population for that. Otherwise natural selection, and random mutation (large enough group will still have them) will continue to drive the genome forward. With the dog pedigrees that break down, that's simply because it's too small a group of dogs so they get inbred. Some royal lines of humans have ended that way too.

    You really have a skewed view if you think everything has to always be about cross breeding groups. I think you just want to see it so badly you find it everywhere you look. That's the problem with starting with a purely social paradigm and then trying to impose it on science. The entity you are trying to observe isn't going to contort itself to match your needs. Your perception may contort itself, but the thing perceived will not.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If africa was the sole founding origins for all modern humans, and africans are pretty close to that single founding population and split time, they would not be genetically diverse, they would be the least diverse. They, in their isolation and distance in time, would have depleted most of their original genes and be the least diverse people on the planet, and the least diverse by far.
    In a sufficiently large population, I don't think depletion ever, ever.... ever happens. You need too small a breeding population for that. Otherwise natural selection, and random mutation (large enough group will still have them) will continue to drive the genome forward. With the dog pedigrees that break down, that's simply because it's too small a group of dogs so they get inbred. Some royal lines of humans have ended that way too.

    You really have a skewed view if you think everything has to always be about cross breeding groups. I think you just want to see it so badly you find it everywhere you look. That's the problem with starting with a purely social paradigm and then trying to impose it on science. The entity you are trying to observe isn't going to contort itself to match your needs. Your perception may contort itself, but the thing perceived will not.
    Deletions happens all the time within a population, the size of the population only dictates the time it will take for those changes to travel throughout the population, it does not stop them from happening.

    I also believe you have it backwards Fox.. It is not my wish, nor do I care, if we are the product of one single line (species) that was isolated and evolved or if we are the product of multiple hominids. What I follow and rely on is the evidence and common sense, not emotions or blind loyal faith based on what someone told me when I was a child, a young man or learning at any stage in my life.

    You are dead set against Us being the product of multiple hominids, for whatever reason/s, and that is your prerogative.

    Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa
    "Our inference methods reject the hypothesis that the ancestral population that gave rise to AMH in Africa was genetically isolated and point to several candidate regions that may have introgressed from an archaic source(s)."

    "central Africa may have been the homeland of a now-extinct archaic form that hybridized with modern humans."

    "We have relied on an indirect approach to detect ancient admixture in African populations because there are no African ancient DNA sequences to make direct comparisons with our candidate loci. We compared human and Neandertal RRM2P4 sequences and found that the three derived sites that define the non-African basal lineage are shared with Neandertal. Thus, we verified that this unusual human sequence, which is characterized by a deep haplotype divergence and a small basal clade, is indeed shared with an archaic form. Further genome-level (i.e., multilocus) analysis will also shed light on the process of archaic admixture, which is likely to be more complicated than we have modeled. For instance, the multimodal likelihood surface in suggests that gene flow among strongly subdivided populations in Africa may characterize multiple stages of human evolution in Africa."

    In short, Africans are a mixed up bunch of humans that are the by-product of multiple archaic hominid admixture. Again, the greater the diversity the greater the admixture. At some point though, you are going to have to let go of your idea that we are the product of a single line, that we evolved from a single line, when in fact, we are the by-product of multiple hominids.... and we are the product of multiple hominids from multiple regions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If africa was the sole founding origins for all modern humans, and africans are pretty close to that single founding population and split time, they would not be genetically diverse, they would be the least diverse. They, in their isolation and distance in time, would have depleted most of their original genes and be the least diverse people on the planet, and the least diverse by far.
    In a sufficiently large population, I don't think depletion ever, ever.... ever happens. You need too small a breeding population for that. Otherwise natural selection, and random mutation (large enough group will still have them) will continue to drive the genome forward. With the dog pedigrees that break down, that's simply because it's too small a group of dogs so they get inbred. Some royal lines of humans have ended that way too.

    You really have a skewed view if you think everything has to always be about cross breeding groups. I think you just want to see it so badly you find it everywhere you look. That's the problem with starting with a purely social paradigm and then trying to impose it on science. The entity you are trying to observe isn't going to contort itself to match your needs. Your perception may contort itself, but the thing perceived will not.
    Deletions happens all the time within a population, the size of the population only dictates the time it will take for those changes to travel throughout the population, it does not stop them from happening.

    I also believe you have it backwards Fox.. It is not my wish, nor do I care, if we are the product of one single line (species) that was isolated and evolved or if we are the product of multiple hominids. What I follow and rely on is the evidence and common sense, not emotions or blind loyal faith based on what someone told me when I was a child, a young man or learning at any stage in my life.

    You are dead set against Us being the product of multiple hominids, for whatever reason/s, and that is your prerogative.

    Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa
    "Our inference methods reject the hypothesis that the ancestral population that gave rise to AMH in Africa was genetically isolated and point to several candidate regions that may have introgressed from an archaic source(s)."

    "central Africa may have been the homeland of a now-extinct archaic form that hybridized with modern humans."

    "We have relied on an indirect approach to detect ancient admixture in African populations because there are no African ancient DNA sequences to make direct comparisons with our candidate loci. We compared human and Neandertal RRM2P4 sequences and found that the three derived sites that define the non-African basal lineage are shared with Neandertal. Thus, we verified that this unusual human sequence, which is characterized by a deep haplotype divergence and a small basal clade, is indeed shared with an archaic form. Further genome-level (i.e., multilocus) analysis will also shed light on the process of archaic admixture, which is likely to be more complicated than we have modeled. For instance, the multimodal likelihood surface in suggests that gene flow among strongly subdivided populations in Africa may characterize multiple stages of human evolution in Africa."

    In short, Africans are a mixed up bunch of humans that are the by-product of multiple archaic hominid admixture. Again, the greater the diversity the greater the admixture. At some point though, you are going to have to let go of your idea that we are the product of a single line, that we evolved from a single line, when in fact, we are the by-product of multiple hominids.... and we are the product of multiple hominids from multiple regions.
    I agree, this makes more sense then a single line of descent.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    You are dead set against Us being the product of multiple hominids, for whatever reason/s, and that is your prerogative.
    No. People are dead set against your misapplication of the scientific method. If a hypothesis is possible, but no strong evidence exists to favor it over others (or over the established hypothesis), asserting it as a truth is not scientific.

    The cross breed hypothesis is possible in the same way as the "god created man" hypothesis is possible. We can't prove it didn't happen, but we also don't have strong evidence that it did, so we leave it on the shelf with all the other "could be" hypotheses.

    Science is about avoiding hasty conclusions.



    Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa
    "Our inference methods reject the hypothesis that the ancestral population that gave rise to AMH in Africa was genetically isolated and point to several candidate regions that may have introgressed from an archaic source(s)."

    "central Africa may have been the homeland of a now-extinct archaic form that hybridized with modern humans."

    "We have relied on an indirect approach to detect ancient admixture in African populations because there are no African ancient DNA sequences to make direct comparisons with our candidate loci. We compared human and Neandertal RRM2P4 sequences and found that the three derived sites that define the non-African basal lineage are shared with Neandertal. Thus, we verified that this unusual human sequence, which is characterized by a deep haplotype divergence and a small basal clade, is indeed shared with an archaic form. Further genome-level (i.e., multilocus) analysis will also shed light on the process of archaic admixture, which is likely to be more complicated than we have modeled. For instance, the multimodal likelihood surface in suggests that gene flow among strongly subdivided populations in Africa may characterize multiple stages of human evolution in Africa."

    In short, Africans are a mixed up bunch of humans that are the by-product of multiple archaic hominid admixture. Again, the greater the diversity the greater the admixture. At some point though, you are going to have to let go of your idea that we are the product of a single line, that we evolved from a single line, when in fact, we are the by-product of multiple hominids.... and we are the product of multiple hominids from multiple regions.
    But that won't explain the 4% difference in the abundance of Neanderthal DNA between Sub Sahara African people and the rest of humanity. If we are all the product of mixing, then there is no good reason why one racial subgroup would get such a substantially different amount of one of the contributors' DNA. So what is your hypothesis that explains this? Did humanity originally not include neanderthal DNA, but yes include all the other hominid subspecies? Then Neanderthals entered after humanity had formed?

    The other problem is: what mechanism would cause so much mixing? Having two species intermingle makes sense because they might both live in the same area or something, but in what geographical area of the world would you have expected to find all the subspecies living simultaneously so they could all come together? In the modern world, if we're talking about "races" as if they were "subspecies" the main reason why we have hugely admixed populations is the slave trade, colonizations, or economic refugees which sometimes move into an area in masses. I don't see any way ancient proto-humans would have been capable of that kind of movement into one anothers' territories.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The cross breed hypothesis is possible in the same way as the "god created man" hypothesis is possible. We can't prove it didn't happen, but we also don't have strong evidence that it did, so we leave it on the shelf with all the other "could be" hypotheses.

    Science is about avoiding hasty conclusions.


    But that won't explain the 4% difference in the abundance of Neanderthal DNA between Sub Sahara African people and the rest of humanity. If we are all the product of mixing, then there is no good reason why one racial subgroup would get such a substantially different amount of one of the contributors' DNA. So what is your hypothesis that explains this? Did humanity originally not include neanderthal DNA, but yes include all the other hominid subspecies? Then Neanderthals entered after humanity had formed?

    The other problem is: what mechanism would cause so much mixing? Having two species intermingle makes sense because they might both live in the same area or something, but in what geographical area of the world would you have expected to find all the subspecies living simultaneously so they could all come together? In the modern world, if we're talking about "races" as if they were "subspecies" the main reason why we have hugely admixed populations is the slave trade, colonizations, or economic refugees which sometimes move into an area in masses. I don't see any way ancient proto-humans would have been capable of that kind of movement into one anothers' territories.
    It is a proven fact that we are a "cross breed". I do not know how to explain that to you any other way. It is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. Every person on the planet does have neandertal, denisovan and other hominid derived DNA / genes.

    The 4% difference within modern humans concerning derived neandertal DNA is the reality and product of all crosses. If homo erectus breeds with neandertal, it does not mean the offspring will be a 50-50 genetic split, nor does it mean that a cross bred population will share the same exact genes throughout that population.

    Hominids also did travel, and they had huge territories that are far larger than most nations today. With axes, spears, throwing spears, etc, I think it is also easy to suggest that they not only traveled in peace but, also went to war from time to time.

    One hominid population also does not need to travel the globe in order to spread their genes.. Their DNA /genes can move from one population to another. The denisovans do not need to directly breed with african hominids, the denisovans only need to breed with neandertals and then those genes only need to radiate through to a point where neandertals and african hominids meet and breed, and vice-versa.

    The world of hominids is also much larger than just neandertals and denisovans. The fossil record is packed with hominid subspecies and species overlapping all over eurasia and africa. This makes the radiation of genes and the distance between hominids very slight and relatively short.

    The "out of africa" theory holds that modern humans descend from 1 direct line of hominid over millions of years, in africa, and with each change, our hominid ancestors sent the not required or needed products (rejects) from africa into europe and asia without directions to get back (travel and traveling into other hominid territories which you claim is impossible if it is the other way around), and after our ancestors stayed in one relative location for millions and millions of years doing this over and over again (spitting out the worlds hominids from one location - africa - home base - mothership), one of these african changes created perfect man who decided to budge from our special location we had been in for millions and millions of years in order to go kill off all the hominids we, our direct line, created from our mothership in africa (which was clearly out of fuel because it never moved).

    The multi-hominid, multi-regional development/contribution/evolutionary process to modern humans is clearly the right one IMO and the out of africa theory is the wrong one..


    "Concerning my personal theory on our recent ancestors, based on the dna and fossil record, I believe it is most likely that the core population of our common ancestor between Us, neandertals and denisovans lived around the Mediterranean Sea. I believe it is highly likely that they would have been the product of hominid crosses themselves, and I believe their population was large, vast, very genetically diverse and spread from the mediterranean into northern europe, africa, across the middle east and into china.

    I believe it is likely denisovans developed in the east of this population, another hominid developed south in africa of this population (perhaps homo sapiens idaltu) and neandertals developed in the center of this population (this would also explain why and how neandertal's ancestors remained part of every population around them while everyone else around them (to the east and south) split into different populations.

    I suspect that the hominids in africa bred to other hominids in africa and hominids in asia bred to other hominids, and some of these genes radiated back and forth between all. I believe, at some point, some hominids on the outskirts bred with neandertal, either in the middle east, asia or africa, and it kick started our, modern humans, beginning. I believe the cross, the product, Us, modern humans, were somehow a better cross this time, somehow different, and then we slowly began to genetically dominate until our ancestor hominids had to give way, one way or another (this includes breeding, again, to other hominids as well)."
    Last edited by gonzales56; May 7th, 2012 at 05:45 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    It is a proven fact that we are a "cross breed". I do not know how to explain that to you any other way. It is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. Every person on the planet does have neandertal, denisovan and other hominid derived DNA / genes.
    Where did you show this? And this is the 2nd time I've asked.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The "out of africa" theory holds that modern humans descend from 1 direct line of hominid over millions of years, in africa, and with each change, our hominid ancestors sent the not required or needed products (rejects) from africa into europe and asia without directions to get back (travel and traveling into other hominid territories which you claim is impossible if it is the other way around), and after our ancestors stayed in one relative location for millions and millions of years doing this over and over again (spitting out the worlds hominids from one location - africa - home base - mothership), one of these african changes created perfect man who decided to budge from our special location we had been in for millions and millions of years in order to go kill off all the hominids we, our direct line, created from our mothership in africa (which was clearly out of fuel because it never moved).
    a straw man if ever i saw one
    even if H.sapiens is essentially seen evolving like any other mammal does (which is that separate species keep themselves mostly separate from closely related species), that does not prevent a small degree of admixture with those related species, which is sufficient to account for the 4% neandertal
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046

    It is a proven fact that we are a "cross breed". I do not know how to explain that to you any other way. It is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. Every person on the planet does have neandertal, denisovan and other hominid derived DNA / genes.
    But isn't that equally explainable by all of these groups descending from the same common ancestor?

    If I have a grand kid that carries similar DNA to one of my sister's grand children, I seriously hope you aren't going to suggest one of my children married one of my sister's children in order to achieve that.




    The 4% difference within modern humans concerning derived neandertal DNA is the reality and product of all crosses. If homo erectus breeds with neandertal, it does not mean the offspring will be a 50-50 genetic split, nor does it mean that a cross bred population will share the same exact genes throughout that population.
    4% across a whole population group? I agree that that's possible for one individual organism vs. another. But statistics don't drift by large amounts over a huge population.


    Hominids also did travel, and they had huge territories that are far larger than most nations today. With axes, spears, throwing spears, etc, I think it is also easy to suggest that they not only traveled in peace but, also went to war from time to time.

    One hominid population also does not need to travel the globe in order to spread their genes.. Their DNA /genes can move from one population to another. The denisovans do not need to directly breed with african hominids, the denisovans only need to breed with neandertals and then those genes only need to radiate through to a point where neandertals and african hominids meet and breed, and vice-versa.
    They must have traveled more than Homo-Sapiens ever did in the history of civilization, because Sub Saharan Africans never mingled with the rest of the world enough to flatten that 4% disparity out.


    The world of hominids is also much larger than just neandertals and denisovans. The fossil record is packed with hominid subspecies and species overlapping all over eurasia and africa. This makes the radiation of genes and the distance between hominids very slight and relatively short.
    Yes. In pairs. What you're discussing would basically involve a whole gaggle of different populations to overlap at once. That would be difficult. The mingling couldn't go one pairing at a time or the genetic result would leave fossils behind and we'd keep finding separate hybrid species. IE. It wouldn't likely be hominid/neanderthal hybrid meets a group of denosovans and becomes a triple hybrid.

    The trouble is that, in most cases, when a single hybrid mating even occurs, the offspring will likely choose one or the other culture to live among, and gradually mingle their offspring until most of the other species genes have become too diluted to be noticeable. True hybridization would require social mingling on a somewhat colossal level, and what evidence exists that any of these subspecies would ever have gotten along well enough to live together in large groups?

    The situation in Mexico involved just that sort of social phenomenon. One racial group fully occupied overlapping territory with another to the point of living in the same villages. Only widespread colonization can create that, and that requires coordination of effort on a national scale. Small tribal groups would never do that. One or the other would simply leave the area rather than be colonized. But nations are more entrenched to their lands and the people really can't leave when a conqueror shows up. You're taking something that can only happen in advanced human cultures and trying to extrapolate it to include primates.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Does science have any human fossils where DNA can be extracted that lived at the same time as the Neanderthal's Fossil that shows we share 4%?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But isn't that equally explainable by all of these groups descending from the same common ancestor?

    If I have a grand kid that carries similar DNA to one of my sister's grand children, I seriously hope you aren't going to suggest one of my children married one of my sister's children in order to achieve that.


    4% across a whole population group? I agree that that's possible for one individual organism vs. another. But statistics don't drift by large amounts over a huge population.


    They must have traveled more than Homo-Sapiens ever did in the history of civilization, because Sub Saharan Africans never mingled with the rest of the world enough to flatten that 4% disparity out.


    Yes. In pairs. What you're discussing would basically involve a whole gaggle of different populations to overlap at once. That would be difficult. The mingling couldn't go one pairing at a time or the genetic result would leave fossils behind and we'd keep finding separate hybrid species. IE. It wouldn't likely be hominid/neanderthal hybrid meets a group of denosovans and becomes a triple hybrid.

    The trouble is that, in most cases, when a single hybrid mating even occurs, the offspring will likely choose one or the other culture to live among, and gradually mingle their offspring until most of the other species genes have become too diluted to be noticeable. True hybridization would require social mingling on a somewhat colossal level, and what evidence exists that any of these subspecies would ever have gotten along well enough to live together in large groups?

    The situation in Mexico involved just that sort of social phenomenon. One racial group fully occupied overlapping territory with another to the point of living in the same villages. Only widespread colonization can create that, and that requires coordination of effort on a national scale. Small tribal groups would never do that. One or the other would simply leave the area rather than be colonized. But nations are more entrenched to their lands and the people really can't leave when a conqueror shows up. You're taking something that can only happen in advanced human cultures and trying to extrapolate it to include primates.
    Your arguments are grounded in misconceptions, mistakes and a bunch of non factual beliefs... Many people do this, it is nothing new but, I will try and explain a few things to you.

    Again, 4% is only the difference between modern humans. It does not represent the total amount of derived genes we have from neandertals.

    Even with that said, 4% is a large amount of contribution in itself. It is a larger contribution to your DNA than if one of your great great-great grandparents was a full blooded neandertal.

    When it comes to HLA alleles, so far the neandertal contribution is 50%+. This is equivalent to one of your parents being a full blooded neandertal and the other parent being a neandertal cross.

    So far they know that 9% of the modern human (eurasians) X chromosome is derived from neandertals. This is roughly equivalent to one of your grandparents being a full blooded neandertal.

    As more and more genes are actually examined/studied, we will learn how much DNA we have derived from neandertals over all. The one thing that is clear is that it is going to be higher than 4%.

    Those that have neandertal and denisovan ancestry can have a 10% difference between them and other modern humans. This is roughly equivalent to one of their great grandparents being a full blooded eurasian hominid.

    The initial numbers/percentages being stated and reported, despite being very low/conservative, is a huge amount of genetic material.. It is not the minimum, insignificant amount you think it is.

    Hopefully now Kojax you fully understand how even 4% (even though that is only an estimated difference in modern humans and not the total derived genetics/genes) is a huge contribution.

    Modern humans are not even suppose to differ in our derived genes by .00000000000000000% from each other, let alone 4%-10%+. It is impossible to have genes that derive from different sources if one believes in a single line or an out of africa theory, let alone 4-10%+ derived differences between modern humans (which is going to be much higher when it is all said and done).

    Two known Eurasian Hominids make up many of our derived genes. The vast majority of our derived genes from them are not located in one place. For the most part, they are "shotgunned" throughout our genome. Their genes are everywhere. You might have an estimated 4%, I might have an estimated 4% and someone else might have an estimated 4%, but the vast majority of that 4% is more than likely going to be in different locations because their DNA is running rampant through all Us as a whole.

    The amount of eurasian hominid derived genes in modern humans, combined with their vast locations, rules out a single or small group common ancestor/source, a one night stand or a small or limited breeding/intermixing point in time or place. You see, you are right in this regard, if it was this unknown hominid traveling into neandertals and breeding with them only occasionally at a specific point in space and time, then running back to breed with their own hominid kind, and we come from this unknown traveling hominid kind, then it would be highly unlikely that their would be a single trace of neandertal or denisovan DNA left in modern humans. However this is not the case.

    What we do know is that despite the 40,000 kya time difference between the overall small and limited neandertal dna samples we uncovered, and our own, we can still know and trace, through them, a very large amount of derived DNA from their ancient peoples.

    If we had other samples from older neandertals before they went through a bottleneck, and from multiple regions, I am sure it would show that our DNA/genes have even far more derived genes from neandertals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The "out of africa" theory holds that modern humans descend from 1 direct line of hominid over millions of years, in africa, and with each change, our hominid ancestors sent the not required or needed products (rejects) from africa into europe and asia without directions to get back (travel and traveling into other hominid territories which you claim is impossible if it is the other way around), and after our ancestors stayed in one relative location for millions and millions of years doing this over and over again (spitting out the worlds hominids from one location - africa - home base - mothership), one of these african changes created perfect man who decided to budge from our special location we had been in for millions and millions of years in order to go kill off all the hominids we, our direct line, created from our mothership in africa (which was clearly out of fuel because it never moved).
    a straw man if ever i saw one
    even if H.sapiens is essentially seen evolving like any other mammal does (which is that separate species keep themselves mostly separate from closely related species), that does not prevent a small degree of admixture with those related species, which is sufficient to account for the 4% neandertal
    Again, 4% is a huge genetic contribution. Neandertal derived DNA throughout the entire globe, at any %, is not and cannot be accounted for by a limited, insignificant and small cross that is hypothesized to have occurred at least 100,000 kya. Impossible.

    The fact that neandertal DNA is found within modern humans throughout the entire global, and those without neandertal dna no longer exist, they are extinct, suggests that neandertals did not just breed to a few modern humans but, instead, neandertals and other hominids bred together and this helped lead to the creation, development and evolution of modern humans.

    I will ask again, for someone, anyone, to post a fossil skull of a real modern human that is dated before neandertal's helped create, or contributed to, us and our modern DNA?
    Last edited by gonzales56; May 11th, 2012 at 02:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Does science have any human fossils where DNA can be extracted that lived at the same time as the Neanderthal's Fossil that shows we share 4%?
    No. There are no modern humans, just archaic hominids and some archaic hominids with some modern looking features.
    Last edited by gonzales56; May 11th, 2012 at 02:46 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    It is a proven fact that we are a "cross breed". I do not know how to explain that to you any other way. It is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. Every person on the planet does have neandertal, denisovan and other hominid derived DNA / genes.
    Where did you show this? And this is the 2nd time I've asked.
    I have posted two papers. One showing neandertal genes in africans and one showing possible admixture throughout africa and all africans with other archaic hominids.

    I have posted these links a few times, I can do it again if you want?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    Your arguments are grounded in misconceptions, mistakes and a bunch of non factual beliefs... Many people do this, it is nothing new but, I will try and explain a few things to you.

    Again, 4% is only the difference between modern humans. It does not represent the total amount of derived genes we have from neandertals.
    Gonzales, I told you that myself.

    It's the fact that two population groups of modern humans can differ from one another by that much in the degree to which they collectively possess these genes that raises the flag telling researchers that the inheritance must have taken place AFTER homo sapiens had come to exist as it's own population group.


    Even with that said, 4% is a large amount of contribution in itself. It is a larger contribution to your DNA than if one of your great great-great grandparents was a full blooded neandertal.
    All the more reason it would be unlikely for Sub Sahara Africans to have drifted that far away from Europeans by random chance.

    However, I'm pretty sure the 4% is not how much we inherited from them in total, but the difference in how much Neanderthal overlap exists in our respective genomes. IE. Take the amount of Neanderthal DNA sub sahara Africans have, multiply it by 1.04, and that should give you the amount European people and Asian people have.



    When it comes to HLA alleles, so far the neandertal contribution is 50%+. This is equivalent to one of your parents being a full blooded neandertal and the other parent being a neandertal cross.

    So far they know that 9% of the modern human (eurasians) X chromosome is derived from neandertals. This is roughly equivalent to one of your grandparents being a full blooded neandertal.

    As more and more genes are actually examined/studied, we will learn how much DNA we have derived from neandertals over all. The one thing that is clear is that it is going to be higher than 4%.
    Derived from Neanderthals, or from the common ancestor that homosapiens in believed to share with Neanderthal?

    Hence my question about grand kids. If my grand kids happen to share some DNA with my sister's grand kids, does that mean that my sister's children must have intermarried with my children, so they could inherit DNA from my sister's children, or would it more likely imply that they inherited that common DNA from my parents (who are also the parents of my sister)?

    Having 50% or more DNA in common doesn't tell you anything about the likelihood of intermixing unless you can demonstrate that the common ancestor lacked that DNA.

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    Hopefully now Kojax you fully understand how even 4% (even though that is only an estimated difference in modern humans and not the total derived genetics/genes) is a huge contribution.

    Modern humans are not even suppose to differ in our derived genes by .00000000000000000% from each other, let alone 4%-10%+. It is impossible to have genes that derive from different sources if one believes in a single line or an out of africa theory, let alone 4-10%+ derived differences between modern humans (which is going to be much higher when it is all said and done).
    The paper in which the 4% was found specifically stated that the 4% disparity was smaller than the disparity that might occur between pairs of modern humans, or even primitive neanderthals. (The only reason they consider it significant is because the other differences usually drop out when you analyze a large population group on the statistical level.)

    This particular statement is therefore, quite simply wrong.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Gonzales, I told you that myself.

    It's the fact that two population groups of modern humans can differ from one another by that much in the degree to which they collectively possess these genes that raises the flag telling researchers that the inheritance must have taken place AFTER homo sapiens had come to exist as it's own population group.


    All the more reason it would be unlikely for Sub Sahara Africans to have drifted that far away from Europeans by random chance.

    However, I'm pretty sure the 4% is not how much we inherited from them in total, but the difference in how much Neanderthal overlap exists in our respective genomes. IE. Take the amount of Neanderthal DNA sub sahara Africans have, multiply it by 1.04, and that should give you the amount European people and Asian people have.

    Derived from Neanderthals, or from the common ancestor that homosapiens in believed to share with Neanderthal?

    Hence my question about grand kids. If my grand kids happen to share some DNA with my sister's grand kids, does that mean that my sister's children must have intermarried with my children, so they could inherit DNA from my sister's children, or would it more likely imply that they inherited that common DNA from my parents (who are also the parents of my sister)?

    Having 50% or more DNA in common doesn't tell you anything about the likelihood of intermixing unless you can demonstrate that the common ancestor lacked that DNA.


    The paper in which the 4% was found specifically stated that the 4% disparity was smaller than the disparity that might occur between pairs of modern humans, or even primitive neanderthals. (The only reason they consider it significant is because the other differences usually drop out when you analyze a large population group on the statistical level.)

    This particular statement is therefore, quite simply wrong.
    You are mixing up two completely different things concerning disparity between genes from the same derived origin and disparity in the actual origin for genes. Those are two different things.

    Out of Africa holds/held that all modern human derived 100% of their genes from the same exact source/origin/one hominid, and that the disparity found in genes between modern humans today is due to population drifts, not source/derived origin differences.

    Multi-regional admixture/evolution holds that multiple hominids from multiple regions contributed to the creation/evolution/DNA of modern humans, that there is disparity in modern human genes due to different origin sources, admixture and population drifts.

    The paper/study, and I hope you understand this, shows that modern humans have disparity in their derived origin sources for many of their genes, and they also discovered, yes, that all modern humans have different derived origins for many of their genes.

    You cannot compare apples to oranges. Disparity in different origins is not the same as disparity in genes from the same origin.

    What we know now is that there are a great number of differences in modern human genetic origins that are and have been derived from multiple hominids. This applies to all modern humans. The days of seeing diversity in modern human genes and declaring that the diversity comes from one source, is over.

    What most of you cant wrap your minds around is the fact that multiple hominids have contributed to creating modern humans, and that is how we came to be. Most of you still keep imagining modern humans in africa 150,000 kya..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    You are mixing up two completely different things concerning disparity between genes from the same derived origin and disparity in the actual origin for genes. Those are two different things.
    Of course they're two very different things. Nobody suggested they were the same. I'm comparing two very different hypotheses against the same bit of evidence to see which one is a better match. The evidence is the 4% disparity. That's our starting point. Regardless of your hypothesis, that is what we both must agree on. There is a 4% disparity.

    I can't tell whether your hypothesis is that homo sapiens evolved separately in multiple regions, or if your hypothesis is that the species emerged in one region (however many DNA contributors there were prior), and then population drift caused the 4% disparity in how many Neanderthal genes one group has compared to another. The people who published the paper, however, did not believe that amount of drift was probable.

    Do you at least agree that the 4% disparity had to be caused by interbreeding after homo-sapiens had already emerged? Or are you stuck on population drift as the cause?



    Out of Africa holds/held that all modern human derived 100% of their genes from the same exact source/origin/one hominid, and that the disparity found in genes between modern humans today is due to population drifts, not source/derived origin differences.
    To be fair, it would probably be more like 99%. Since we know that Neanderthal- Sapien mixing happened later on, we really can't be sure there was no mixing at all (not absolute zero) in the prior stages either. It's just considered doubtful that it affected the process very much. Environmental selection on one blood line is seen as the cause for why sapiens are what we are, not mixing of traits from many blood lines.

    The paper/study, and I hope you understand this, shows that modern humans have disparity in their derived origin sources for many of their genes, and they also discovered, yes, that all modern humans have different derived origins for many of their genes.
    I'll need you to elaborate. What do you mean by "derived origins". What does the "derived" part mean? As near as I can tell reading the paper, they couldn't be sure of any gene's actual origin except by using statistical analysis, and that analysis concluded that the 4% drift was due to subsequent interbreeding, not interbreeding that may have occurred prior to the original homo sapiens.

    If you know of another way of determining origin, please share. Because it appears that those who work in the field have openly admitted that they do not know of any other way to determine that with certainty, only guess with statistics. If you have a better way of doing this, you should tell them about it. They'd be happy to hear of it.



    You cannot compare apples to oranges. Disparity in different origins is not the same as disparity in genes from the same origin.
    Except that both lead to the same visible result, identical in every way under a microscope (or other chemical DNA analysis tool.)



    What we know now is that there are a great number of differences in modern human genetic origins that are and have been derived from multiple hominids. This applies to all modern humans. The days of seeing diversity in modern human genes and declaring that the diversity comes from one source, is over.
    No. We do not KNOW anything of the sort, because there is no non-statistical way to detect a DNA strand's origin.


    What most of you cant wrap your minds around is the fact that multiple hominids have contributed to creating modern humans, and that is how we came to be. Most of you still keep imagining modern humans in africa 150,000 kya..
    Everyone here can wrap their mind around it. At least I know I can. I'm not stupid. I can imagine, envision, and make sense of the whole idea.

    However, it doesn't appear to match the evidence. In science, the elegance of an idea is not as important as its ability to fit the data. That's why you are coming under attack in this thread. You're ignoring evidence and postulating outcomes for which no evidence exists other than the beauty of the idea. Beautiful ideas are great, and make fine stories, or fine religious movements, but they are worth absolutely nothing to science.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Of course they're two very different things. Nobody suggested they were the same. I'm comparing two very different hypotheses against the same bit of evidence to see which one is a better match. The evidence is the 4% disparity. That's our starting point. Regardless of your hypothesis, that is what we both must agree on. There is a 4% disparity.
    There is a difference between the amount of genes eurasians share with neandertals than africans share with neandertals. It was estimated that it could be a 4% difference, however, we will find the exact % when the research is complete.

    There is also a difference between the amount of genes eurasians themselves share with neandertals.

    Some eurasians also have an estimated 6% more genes in common with denisovan hominids than the rest of the worlds population does.

    Africans, like those with common genes shared with denisovan, also have archaic genes that the rest of the world just does not have or share, and it is clear, that these genes are shared between africans and other archaic hominids exclusively.

    As these "disparities" are added up, it becomes impossible for there to have existed a single hominid line that is or was the founding/creating population of modern humans.

    I have believe for years (although most did not 2-3 years ago but, now they do) that population splits from one hominid population over the last 50,000-150,000 years ago could not account for these disparities, and in many cases, 500,000-1,000,000 years could not and cannot account for the disparities. However, neandertal, denisovan and other relatively recent hominids could, and now do, explain and show where these disparities come from and how it is homo sapiens / modern humans came to be.

    The time differences required for the vast majority (some 99.9%) of our genes to differ the way they have makes it impossible for modern humans to have participated in the vast majority of those processes, and the simple fact that there are massive rips/splits between modern human genes shows, without any doubt, that we did not and could not have came from or developed in a single hominid line. There is no way a single origin, a single line, a single family, can be split that much and remain part of the same hominid line/population. Only admixture, between and with multiple hominids from multiple regions, can explain the origins of modern humans.

    Now how did that occur? How could that of occurred?

    Did modern humans come out of africa some 150,000 years ago from one direct line over millions of years, and then moved, breeding to the worlds hominids? This hypothesis/theory is is perhaps the last grasp of air for the out of africa believers but, and unfortunately for them, it is completely off and wrong.

    There is no doubt there were hominids in africa 150,000 years ago but, how modern could they have really been when they lacked up to, or at least, 20-25% of the genes modern humans have?

    Whatever hominid or hominids bred to each other, they surely were not modern humans. Modern humans were and are the products of these hominids breeding to each other.

    The DNA also shows that modern humans did not evolve on their own, separately, in different regions. We are not that old.... However, our multiple hominid ancestors did evolve in multiple regions, throughout differing time periods, and the mixing, mingling and breeding between them created Us, modern humans. We are a jumbled up pile, the product, of their genes, their evolutionary changes, their splits, etc...


    The evidence, contrary to some statements made here, shows exactly what I am stating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Of course they're two very different things. Nobody suggested they were the same. I'm comparing two very different hypotheses against the same bit of evidence to see which one is a better match. The evidence is the 4% disparity. That's our starting point. Regardless of your hypothesis, that is what we both must agree on. There is a 4% disparity.
    There is a difference between the amount of genes eurasians share with neandertals than africans share with neandertals. It was estimated that it could be a 4% difference, however, we will find the exact % when the research is complete.

    There is also a difference between the amount of genes eurasians themselves share with neandertals.

    Some eurasians also have an estimated 6% more genes in common with denisovan hominids than the rest of the worlds population does.

    Africans, like those with common genes shared with denisovan, also have archaic genes that the rest of the world just does not have or share, and it is clear, that these genes are shared between africans and other archaic hominids exclusively.

    As these "disparities" are added up, it becomes impossible for there to have existed a single hominid line that is or was the founding/creating population of modern humans.
    Why would interbreeding AFTER homo sapiens had already evolved not be a better explanation? Do you understand the accepted theory here? The accepted theory is:

    1) - Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa

    2) - A lot of them chose to leave Africa, settling in Eurasia.

    3) - Some of them then bred with Donosovans, Neanderthals, and etc. That is to say, some creatures that were already fully homo sapien, who had already evolved all the main traits we now associate with homo sapien, then afterward bred with some of the other hominid species that were alive at the same time.

    What is wrong with that explanation? How does it match the evidence more poorly than yours?






    I have believe for years (although most did not 2-3 years ago but, now they do) that population splits from one hominid population over the last 50,000-150,000 years ago could not account for these disparities, and in many cases, 500,000-1,000,000 years could not and cannot account for the disparities. However, neandertal, denisovan and other relatively recent hominids could, and now do, explain and show where these disparities come from and how it is homo sapiens / modern humans came to be.

    The time differences required for the vast majority (some 99.9%) of our genes to differ the way they have makes it impossible for modern humans to have participated in the vast majority of those processes, and the simple fact that there are massive rips/splits between modern human genes shows, without any doubt, that we did not and could not have came from or developed in a single hominid line. There is no way a single origin, a single line, a single family, can be split that much and remain part of the same hominid line/population. Only admixture, between and with multiple hominids from multiple regions, can explain the origins of modern humans.

    Now how did that occur? How could that of occurred?

    Did modern humans come out of africa some 150,000 years ago from one direct line over millions of years, and then moved, breeding to the worlds hominids? This hypothesis/theory is is perhaps the last grasp of air for the out of africa believers
    I'm not sure what you mean by "disparities"?

    The remarkable thing about humans is the incredible uniformity between our racial types. Compare a polar bear against a brown bear, and I'm sure you would find they differed in much more fundamental ways than an African human differs from a mongoloid/Asian human.

    That uniformity is easily explained by continual interbreeding and the short amount of time that has elapsed since humanity emerged. But that doesn't provide any evidence for an interbreeding origin, just an interbreeding existence.


    but, and unfortunately for them, it is completely off and wrong.
    Ok, this is a fine example of things you shouldn't say on a science forum, unless you plan to post some links to a reliable source that can back you up. The statement may be true for all anyone knows, but a scientist would never believe you just because you say so.


    There is no doubt there were hominids in africa 150,000 years ago but, how modern could they have really been when they lacked up to, or at least, 20-25% of the genes modern humans have?
    Do you know of any evidence that they differed by 25%? That's an awful lot. I'd be surprised if apes even differ from us by a full 25%, or any mammal for that matter. At least that can't be 25% of the whole. You must mean 25% of some particular category of gene?


    The evidence, contrary to some statements made here, shows exactly what I am stating.
    And you're not going to do us the courtesy of finding it for us? It's this particular form of discourtesy that is getting you attacked. Whenever I want to say something outrageous on this forum, I have learned by troublesome experience, that I must at least post a link. You'll notice that I do this if anyone asks me to, or else I concede the point. Well...except I don't always do it for iNow. Sometimes his link/evidence requirements are a bit extravagant. But he's a lone exception to my rule so far.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Why would interbreeding AFTER homo sapiens had already evolved not be a better explanation? Do you understand the accepted theory here? The accepted theory is:

    1) - Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa

    2) - A lot of them chose to leave Africa, settling in Eurasia.

    3) - Some of them then bred with Donosovans, Neanderthals, and etc. That is to say, some creatures that were already fully homo sapien, who had already evolved all the main traits we now associate with homo sapien, then afterward bred with some of the other hominid species that were alive at the same time.

    What is wrong with that explanation? How does it match the evidence more poorly than yours?
    1. There is no proof or evidence of any modern humans in africa 150,000 kya.

    2. Modern humans are the genetic composition of multiple hominids from multiple regions. One cannot be from a single african hominid when their genetic material comes from, is derived from, multiple sources, hominids and regions.

    3. These ancient african modern humans, according to the out of africa theory, did not exist and they did not breed to other hominids.

    Where are these imaginary ancient african modern humans? Why are they not in the fossil record? The only humans alive today are those of multiple hominid decent. Why is that? Billions of humans, and all of them are hominid crosses. Not one of them is one of these so called ancient african "modern humans", and they wont be because, we are modern humans and modern humans are the descendants of hominid crosses, not the descendants of a theorized ancient african modern human.

    4. 6% denisovan, 4% neandertal and about 13% unknown archaic hominid/s for africans.

    These numbers will only go up with newer and newer technology and as scientific studies get underway (even with today's technology) but, even these primitive figures/estimates show that whatever hominids existed before and during the crossing of our ancestral hominids, they surely were not and could not have been "modern humans".


    I have also posted links to papers/studies concerning everything I have discussed here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    1. There is no proof or evidence of any modern humans in africa 150,000 kya.
    really ? none whatsoever ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    "modern humans"?
    "anatomicaly modern humans"
    "early modern humans"
    it seems that the uneducated press think these words quite flexible in their useage


    homo sapiens sapiens
    homo sapiens neanderthalensis
    homo sapiens heidelbergensis(and/or archaic and/or anticessor)

    oldest fossil evidence
    heidelbergensis--- spain circa 1,000,000ybp("out of spain")
    neanderthalensis---israel circa 70,000ybp, croatia circa 100,000 ybp("out of croatia")

    it would be nice if everyone adopted a single choice of words for the claimed different sub-species

    then the "out of..." silliness could grow up and find some closure
    to assume that we made all of the several steps in evolution from homo habilis, ergaster, or erectus to homo sapiens sapiens in only one place from the really thin archaelogical evidence is folly-----------as is to assume the opposite(though the opposite seems more plausable)

    and just because the oldest fossils of any given species or sub species found(so far) come from a particular place, doesn't mean that they were fossils of the very first members of the species or subspecies

    god gave us feet so we could wander about the globe, dying, and dropping our bones hither and yon, and confusing the heck out of later archaelogists
    and some folks in here too
    ..........................
    when did we become human?
    and what exactly does that mean?

    heidelbergensis and neanderthalensis buried their dead, and may have had totemic shrines(cave bear skulls)
    which some anthropologists/archaelogists seem to equate with religion/ and/or a belief in an "afterlife"

    as silly as that logical leap may seem, what if it is true?
    is that the hallmark of being human?
    if not that,
    then what?
    Last edited by sculptor; May 15th, 2012 at 07:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    1. There is no proof or evidence of any modern humans in africa 150,000 kya.
    really ? none whatsoever ?
    None... Although that has never stopped the out of africa folks from claiming the few archaic hominid remains from africa as being either anatomically modern humans or ancestors of modern humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    What is your peer-reviewed source for this assertion?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Why would interbreeding AFTER homo sapiens had already evolved not be a better explanation? Do you understand the accepted theory here? The accepted theory is:

    1) - Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa

    2) - A lot of them chose to leave Africa, settling in Eurasia.

    3) - Some of them then bred with Donosovans, Neanderthals, and etc. That is to say, some creatures that were already fully homo sapien, who had already evolved all the main traits we now associate with homo sapien, then afterward bred with some of the other hominid species that were alive at the same time.

    What is wrong with that explanation? How does it match the evidence more poorly than yours?
    1. There is no proof or evidence of any modern humans in africa 150,000 kya.
    Is there evidence of modern human from anywhere else that long ago?


    2. Modern humans are the genetic composition of multiple hominids from multiple regions. One cannot be from a single african hominid when their genetic material comes from, is derived from, multiple sources, hominids and regions.
    That's what is called a "false dichotomy".

    Mixing a small amount of Bear DNA into a dog wouldn't mean the dog didn't descend mostly from a lineage unrelated to bears.




    3. These ancient african modern humans, according to the out of africa theory, did not exist and they did not breed to other hominids.
    Then are you refuting the statistical analysis that suggests a 4% drift would be highly improbable? Perhaps you have your own means of determining how much population drift is probable?

    Would you like to share this new technology of yours?


    Where are these imaginary ancient african modern humans? Why are they not in the fossil record? The only humans alive today are those of multiple hominid decent. Why is that? Billions of humans, and all of them are hominid crosses. Not one of them is one of these so called ancient african "modern humans", and they wont be because, we are modern humans and modern humans are the descendants of hominid crosses, not the descendants of a theorized ancient african modern human.

    4. 6% denisovan, 4% neandertal and about 13% unknown archaic hominid/s for africans.
    4% MORE neanderthal DNA. Not 4% total. A difference of 4% in two lineages of the same species requires one of two things:

    1) - A very long time. (Which we know there wasn't.)

    or

    2) - Interbreeding after the species already existed.

    There is a highly ridiculous option 3

    3) - Every Neanderthal/Donosovan/...etc admixture always comes out homo-sapien, and some just have different mixtures. (So even with different mixtures, the product always comes out homo sapien?)

    Do understand why that third option is ridiculous? With all the chaos involved in DNA selection, what are the odds that two different Neanderthal/Donosovan/etc hybrids would share enough common traits to be recognized as the same species after it's over? (Always picking the same traits from each contributor...?)


    These numbers will only go up with newer and newer technology and as scientific studies get underway (even with today's technology) but, even these primitive figures/estimates show that whatever hominids existed before and during the crossing of our ancestral hominids, they surely were not and could not have been "modern humans".
    You realize that Neanderthals were still alive as a distinct and recognizable species as late as 33,000 years ago, right?

    Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Cromagnons have been found and dated back to 35,000 years ago.

    Cro-Magnon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So at a minimum, the two species coexisted for 2,000 years.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Neanderthal Predation Theory
    By Vexer in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: January 11th, 2012, 11:21 AM
  2. T Rex and Neanderthal DNA/protein
    By Golkarian in forum Biology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 14th, 2009, 12:43 AM
  3. Neanderthal genome already giving up its secrets
    By gottspieler in forum In the News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 21st, 2009, 08:30 PM
  4. Neanderthal DNA sequenced
    By southern_firestorm in forum Biology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 9th, 2008, 11:51 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 27th, 2008, 09:19 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •