PDA

View Full Version : Ancient Humans Had Sex With Mystery Species, New DNA Study Shows.



Cern
11-20-2013, 07:30 PM
Ancient Humans Had Sex With Mystery Species, New DNA Study Shows


The ancient genomes, one from a Neanderthal and one from a different archaic human group, the Denisovans, were presented on 18 November at a meeting at the Royal Society in London. They suggest that interbreeding went on between the members of several ancient human-like groups living in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago, including an as-yet unknown human ancestor from Asia.

“What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a ‘Lord of the Rings’-type world — that there were many hominid populations,” says Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London who was at the meeting but was not involved in the work.

The first Neanderthal and the Denisovan genome sequences revolutionized the study of ancient human history, not least because they showed that these groups interbred with anatomically modern humans, contributing to the genetic diversity of many people alive today.

All humans whose ancestry originates outside of Africa owe about 2% of their genome to Neanderthals; and certain populations living in Oceania, such as Papua New Guineans and Australian Aboriginals, got about 4% of their DNA from interbreeding between their ancestors and Denisovans, who are named after the cave in Siberia’s Altai Mountains where they were discovered. The cave contains remains deposited there between 30,000 and 50,000 years ago.

Those conclusions however were based on low-quality genome sequences, riddled with errors and full of gaps, David Reich, an evolutionary geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts said at the meeting. His team, in collaboration with Svante Pääbo at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, have now produced much more complete versions of the Denisovan and Neanderthal genomes — matching the quality of contemporary human genomes. The high-quality Denisovan genome data and new Neanderthal genome both come from bones recovered from Denisova Cave.

The new Denisovan genome indicates that this enigmatic population got around: Reich said at the meeting that they interbred with Neanderthals and with the ancestors of human populations that now live in China and other parts of East Asia, in addition to Oceanic populations, as his team previously reported. Most surprisingly, Reich said, the new genomes indicate that Denisovans interbred with another extinct population of archaic humans that lived in Asia more than 30,000 years ago, which is neither human nor Neanderthal.

The meeting was abuzz with conjecture about the identity of this potentially new population of humans. “We don’t have the faintest idea,” says Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the London Natural History Museum, who was not involved in the work. He speculates that the population could be related to Homo heidelbergensis, a species that left Africa around half a million years ago and later gave rise to Neanderthals in Europe. “Perhaps it lived on in Asia as well,” Stringer says.

This story originally appeared in Nature News.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/ancient-humans-sex-mystery-species-dna_n_4302031.html

Anglojew
11-20-2013, 08:02 PM
Elves

Prisoner Of Ice
11-20-2013, 11:38 PM
White Mongols.

Lábaru
11-20-2013, 11:41 PM
Cows and Goats and maybe Jews.

McCauley
11-20-2013, 11:41 PM
Elves

I agree, it was elves.

CordedWhelp
11-23-2013, 04:46 PM
Gnomes!

Albion
11-25-2013, 08:40 PM
I agree, it was elves.

IMO, elves and other humanoid creatures could be ancient memory of other human species. Alternatively such creatures could be based on "freaks" basically - people with dwarfism, giants could be based on people that grew exceptionally tall (it happens, but average heights were less anyway). Probably a mixture of the two.

Jackson
11-25-2013, 09:01 PM
IMO, elves and other humanoid creatures could be ancient memory of other human species. Alternatively such creatures could be based on "freaks" basically - people with dwarfism, giants could be based on people that grew exceptionally tall (it happens, but average heights were less anyway). Probably a mixture of the two.

I had thought something similar. Even more recently such as the Mesolithic-Neolithic when you had Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers that were culturally and ethnically very distinct living in close vicinity, probably encountering each other fairly often but remaining separate, it must have evoked a similar feeling of disparity between nearby human groups that could easily have found their way into folklore and memory.

Empecinado
11-25-2013, 09:05 PM
IMO, elves and other humanoid creatures could be ancient memory of other human species. Alternatively such creatures could be based on "freaks" basically - people with dwarfism, giants could be based on people that grew exceptionally tall (it happens, but average heights were less anyway). Probably a mixture of the two.

I strongly believe that at some point of Prehistory, some natives took refuge in forests and mountains when they were invaded by foreign peoples... and this gave rise to the legends of elves, trolls, goblins, dwarves and so on.These populations probably had more Neanderthal or primitive traits than the newcomers that would worsen due to inbreeding, and hence its description as small creatures, strong or half monster. This would also explain why these criatures were considered the builders of menhirs and other ancient structures.

There is a "recent" case in Catalonia (19th century), the Golluts. They were originally people abandoned by their family after suffering the goiter illness due the iodine deficiency, they lived together in the mountains in small communities and due the endogamy they were progressively turning into ugly, retarded, dwarf and primitive people. People there thought that they were not humans but a sort of dwarves and sometimes hunted them for fun and used them as a circus attraction like if they were animals:

http://www.cuatro.com/cuarto-milenio/Golluts_MDSVID20091204_0026_3.jpg

http://eldesclasado.zonalibre.org/imagen2.jpg

Also
11-25-2013, 10:12 PM
At least they were having sex.

Albion
11-25-2013, 10:18 PM
At least they were having sex.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/198/477/e789ac5d-9220-4e22-91f3-8187426a5ded.gif

Smaug
11-25-2013, 10:22 PM
I don't know, Elves left for other plan, and Dwarves became part of the Mountains. Hobbits maybe?

Longbowman
11-25-2013, 11:25 PM
IMO, elves and other humanoid creatures could be ancient memory of other human species. Alternatively such creatures could be based on "freaks" basically - people with dwarfism, giants could be based on people that grew exceptionally tall (it happens, but average heights were less anyway). Probably a mixture of the two.

Not a bad theory. I hold that the Homo Florensiensis subspecies of Homo Erectus inspired the 'Ebu Gogo' legends of Flores, Indonesia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebu_gogo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

See also: cryptzoology. Cryptzoology is 95% bullcrap, but it's amusing bullcrap, so it's well worth your time to trawl through.

Virtuous
11-25-2013, 11:29 PM
Today's Races are a product of yesterday's Hominid(s), rather than the Darwinist bullshit. There you have it, I am way ahead of science on this one, trust me.

oh, and Cromagnon is master race.

Longbowman
11-25-2013, 11:42 PM
I am way ahead of science on this one, trust me.


Argument completely invalidated.

Virtuous
11-25-2013, 11:47 PM
Argument completely invalidated.

Australoid skull (Neanderthal-Erectus/Ergaster) /Europid Slavic skull (Reduced Cromagnon)

http://jewamongyou.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/aboriginal-vs-slav.jpg

Negroid skull (reduced Homo Erectus/Ergaster)

http://www.theoryofuniverse.com/man/races/Image93.jpg


:coffee:

Prisoner Of Ice
11-25-2013, 11:48 PM
Today's Races are a product of yesterday's Hominid(s), rather than the Darwinist bullshit. There you have it, I am way ahead of science on this one, trust me.

oh, and Cromagnon is master race.

That is the darwinistic bullshit. The out of africa crap is made up very recently, and has proven to be bullshit.

Virtuous
11-25-2013, 11:52 PM
That is the darwinistic bullshit. The out of africa crap is made up very recently, and has proven to be bullshit.

Well, I am referring to that single line of evolution out of Africa theory, and that all contemporary Races are all evolved versions of Cromagnon. BITCH PLEASE, Cromagnon was way ahead of his time even back then.

Prisoner Of Ice
11-25-2013, 11:53 PM
Well, I am referring to that single line of evolution out of Africa theory, and that all contemporary Races are all evolved versions of Cromagnon. BITCH PLEASE, Cromagnon was way ahead of his time even back then.

Yeah, Iwas saying you are right, looks like. The dmanisis skulls and papers and metric analyses basically prove the races have been split for 2 million or more years. Probably much longer.

Longbowman
11-25-2013, 11:55 PM
I'm putting up some photos from a site called 'the more Jew know,' without any explanation as to why this proves my point, or why I'm 'ahead of science on this one' despite the study of skulls in relation to ethnicity and ancestry being 200 years old. :coffee:


I am way ahead of science on this one, trust me.

Yes, but are you though? Are you really? Here's a tip before writing anything, in general in as well as on the forum: before you press the 'post quick reply' button, read what you wrote, and think to yourself, 'is this something a winner would write? Or is it actually a sentence that would sound ridiculous if I heard it from anyone else's lips but mine.'

I'm not even going to begin to dismantle your 'point' myself. Just go to www.wikipedia.org and enter 'neanderthal,' 'denisova hominin,' 'cro-magnon' and anything else relevant to this. Just to give you a heads-up, neanderthals contribute around 2.7% of the DNA of the average European - 23andme could tell you that. The related Denisova hominin contributed hugely to the makeup of current Melanesians and Polynesians. Cro-magnons were just early Europeans, and were actually slightly more Neanderthal than we are today (we've been 'corrupted' by waves of less-Neanderthal migration from Anatolia and elsewhere).

Virtuous
11-26-2013, 12:12 AM
Yes, but are you though? Are you really? Here's a tip before writing anything, in general in as well as on the forum: before you press the 'post quick reply' button, read what you wrote, and think to yourself, 'is this something a winner would write? Or is it actually a sentence that would sound ridiculous if I heard it from anyone else's lips but mine.'

I'm not even going to begin to dismantle your 'point' myself. Just go to www.wikipedia.org and enter 'neanderthal,' 'denisova hominin,' 'cro-magnon' and anything else relevant to this. Just to give you a heads-up, neanderthals contribute around 2.7% of the DNA of the average European - 23andme could tell you that. The related Denisova hominin contributed hugely to the makeup of current Melanesians and Polynesians. Cro-magnons were just early Europeans, and were actually slightly more Neanderthal than we are today (we've been 'corrupted' by waves of less-Neanderthal migration from Anatolia and elsewhere).

Yeah yeah, keep on talkin'

http://images.football.co.uk/540x410/photo_1312881001549-1-0.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Homo_erectus_new.JPG/220px-Homo_erectus_new.JPG

Longbowman
11-26-2013, 12:18 AM
Yeah yeah, keep on talkin'

*Keep on actually making coherent points, as opposed to posting pictures that have stopped even being photographs and have moved on to artists' impressions. No accompanying explanatory text? No attempt to tackle any of the points or statistics I provided in my article? If you really have a theory that would revolutionise the way we think, why don't you publish it and get it peer-reviewed. Who knows, you might get a nobel prize (Not bloody likely). Of course, you'll have to actuallynot jwrite out your points with words, not just pretty pictures you found on google images.

Prisoner Of Ice
11-26-2013, 12:19 AM
Yes, but are you though? Are you really? Here's a tip before writing anything, in general in as well as on the forum: before you press the 'post quick reply' button, read what you wrote, and think to yourself, 'is this something a winner would write? Or is it actually a sentence that would sound ridiculous if I heard it from anyone else's lips but mine.'

I'm not even going to begin to dismantle your 'point' myself. Just go to www.wikipedia.org and enter 'neanderthal,' 'denisova hominin,' 'cro-magnon' and anything else relevant to this. Just to give you a heads-up, neanderthals contribute around 2.7% of the DNA of the average European - 23andme could tell you that. The related Denisova hominin contributed hugely to the makeup of current Melanesians and Polynesians. Cro-magnons were just early Europeans, and were actually slightly more Neanderthal than we are today (we've been 'corrupted' by waves of less-Neanderthal migration from Anatolia and elsewhere).

It's all a bunch of bullshit based on political whim more than science. I happen to know a lot about it through my interest in neanderthals. It's involved but results are pretty conclusive.

First off: ancient east africans were not negroid.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/09/racial-affinities-of-prehistoric-east.html

Second: hominids outside africa are more advanced than inside, and what was once thought to be "first out of africa" is actually a 50% neanderthal hybrid with homo erectus. Implying humans were already out of africa, and this is how "modern" humans really formed.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/fossil-evidence-for-origin-of-homo.html

Smoking gun, but press ignores it: All of the fossil hominids are the same lineage, meaning there's no out of africa and multiregionalism wins. Ancient skulls have same variations between races as modern ones!
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/lower/dmanisi/d4500-lordkipanidze-2013.html

neanderthal admixture is higher and keeps climbing as genes are identified.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/08/34-79-neandertal-admixture-in-eurasia.html

But there's a problem here, and it's that everyone in world has the neanderthal version of some genes that originate there.

The other problem is that having x% of your genes come from there is stronger than x% ancestry. You can have 10% of your ancestors come from neanderthals and have no neanderthal genes.
The vast majority of genes are the same in the first place. So if you have a difference in genes of only 10% in the first place and you have 5% neanderthal version, you are actually more likely 50% neanderthal in ancestry. So this impression they are giving people is very wrong. We evolved from neanderthals, and in fact all of the hominid species, that's all there is to it. We just got different proportions of each based on where we live.

I think this retardo political push is to try to make people less nationalistic, that's the only reason for it. Archaeologically, there's absolutely 0% evidence for out of africa and a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

Prisoner Of Ice
11-26-2013, 12:26 AM
Also...anthropology is just not science. My little math demonstration hopefully shows that point.

The green people have 20% green hair gene, and we have 10% green hair gene. What % of our ancestry comes from green people? I dunno 5%? 6%? Fuck this is impossible!~!~

:lol:

Edit: archaeology is very scientific, but anthropology is generally simply making shit up.

Longbowman
11-26-2013, 12:31 AM
[QUOTE]First off: ancient east africans were not negroid.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/09/racial-affinities-of-prehistoric-east.html

Could be. White/Asian people had to start somewhere.


Second: hominids outside africa are more advanced than inside, and what was once thought to be "first out of africa" is actually a 50% neanderthal hybrid with homo erectus. Implying humans were already out of africa, and this is how "modern" humans really formed.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/fossil-evidence-for-origin-of-homo.html

More like <6%. It's been demonstrated. If you have evidence to the contrary please share it. Of course all humans descended from neanderthals have ancestry from outside Africa. It doesn't prove they aren't ultimately descended from African hominids.


Smoking gun, but press ignores it: All of the fossil hominids are the same lineage, meaning there's no out of africa and multiregionalism wins. Ancient skulls have same variations between races as modern ones!
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/lower/dmanisi/d4500-lordkipanidze-2013.html

Why no, no they aren't. Homo Erectus almost certainly isn't, and that's just one. Several Australopithecus species, Homo Robustus, Homo Habilis, etc. all completely disprove this.


neanderthal admixture is higher and keeps climbing as genes are identified.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/08/34-79-neandertal-admixture-in-eurasia.html

It won't climb high enough to prove your point and I'll explain why later.


But there's a problem here, and it's that everyone in world has the neanderthal version of some genes that originate there.


No they don't. They share plenty of genetics, but Neanderthal genetics don't crop up in subsaharans.


The other problem is that having x% of your genes come from there is stronger than x% ancestry. You can have 10% of your ancestors come from neanderthals and have no neanderthal genes.

Technically true, but a bit unlikely.


The vast majority of genes are the same in the first place. So if you have a difference in genes of only 10% in the first place and you have 5% neanderthal version, you are actually more likely 50% neanderthal in ancestry. So this impression they are giving people is very wrong. We evolved from neanderthals, and in fact all of the hominid species, that's all there is to it. We just got different proportions of each based on where we live.

Your premise has something to it, but it's not actually correct. We know the Neanderthal genome. We can compare it to ours. If 100 genes could differ between them and us, and the average Briton shares 2 of those genes with Neanderthals, then the average Briton would be 2% Neanderthal.


I think this retardo political push is to try to make people less nationalistic, that's the only reason for it. Archaeologically, there's absolutely 0% evidence for out of africa and a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

There's tonnes of evidence, mainly the early fossil record. But it's not relevant. You seem to have this inferiority complex because apparently, if our distant ancestors came from Africa, Africans must be superior in some way. Grow up. You also seem to think if you can prove we have more or less Neanderthal ancestry, that will disprove the out of Africa theory (but it wouldn't, because Neanderthals also came out of Africa) and also prove we're more distinct from Africans. Listen. Not that we would want to, but we can breed with them. We can produce healthy, fertile offspring. And also, unless you don't believe in evolution, we definitely had shared ancestry at one point. And so what? We also have shared ancestry with dogs and even cauliflower. That said, other humans are definitely our closest cousins. And they're closer to us than we are to any. Other. Hominid. Ever. Even if 'out of Africa' were wrong, it is completely indisputable that we would have branched of each other, just somewhere else. All you could possible argue is when that happened, but it still wouldn't have happened TOO long ago, and I'd be happy to explain why if you had any questions.

rashka
11-26-2013, 12:35 AM
If you go by blood type, then B is the newest.

Neanderthal
11-26-2013, 12:35 AM
Gotta love the 'real scientists' that go by the bullshit they teach us in school.

Prisoner Of Ice
11-26-2013, 12:38 AM
Sorry but you are just full of shit and don't know what you are talking about longbowman. You didn't read any of those papers or even the summaries, and if you haven't read all that or a hundred others you don't even know the basics of what's going on.




Second: hominids outside africa are more advanced than inside, and what was once thought to be "first out of africa" is actually a 50% neanderthal hybrid with homo erectus. Implying humans were already out of africa, and this is how "modern" humans really formed.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12...n-of-homo.html


This is "the fossil record" that's been argued to be out of africa. However, it's proven not to be. You didn't read it and don't even understand the basics. Metrically this human looking skull is combination of neanderthal and homo erectus. That makes it clear how the first humans were made. There's no africans involved with that, humans don't look like neanderthals any more because they got largely washed out from eastern mixture, not because they got replaced.

I don't mind posting evidence but you are at a stage of just looking things up on wikipedia and yet completely sure of yourself. Even the guy who invented out of africa theory has long since disavowed it, it's false.

There's reams and reams of evidence against. There's no actual direct evidence FOR it.

Jackson
11-26-2013, 12:40 AM
It's all a bunch of bullshit based on political whim more than science. I happen to know a lot about it through my interest in neanderthals. It's involved but results are pretty conclusive.

First off: ancient east africans were not negroid.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/09/racial-affinities-of-prehistoric-east.html

Second: hominids outside africa are more advanced than inside, and what was once thought to be "first out of africa" is actually a 50% neanderthal hybrid with homo erectus. Implying humans were already out of africa, and this is how "modern" humans really formed.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/fossil-evidence-for-origin-of-homo.html

Smoking gun, but press ignores it: All of the fossil hominids are the same lineage, meaning there's no out of africa and multiregionalism wins. Ancient skulls have same variations between races as modern ones!
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/lower/dmanisi/d4500-lordkipanidze-2013.html

neanderthal admixture is higher and keeps climbing as genes are identified.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/08/34-79-neandertal-admixture-in-eurasia.html

But there's a problem here, and it's that everyone in world has the neanderthal version of some genes that originate there.

The other problem is that having x% of your genes come from there is stronger than x% ancestry. You can have 10% of your ancestors come from neanderthals and have no neanderthal genes.
The vast majority of genes are the same in the first place. So if you have a difference in genes of only 10% in the first place and you have 5% neanderthal version, you are actually more likely 50% neanderthal in ancestry. So this impression they are giving people is very wrong. We evolved from neanderthals, and in fact all of the hominid species, that's all there is to it. We just got different proportions of each based on where we live.

I think this retardo political push is to try to make people less nationalistic, that's the only reason for it. Archaeologically, there's absolutely 0% evidence for out of africa and a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

That blog is interesting. He talks about a multiregional model but episodic, with repeated dispersal and mixture. That does sound more logical to me. Although if the mixture is so complete that only the lineages of the latest to leave Africa are seen in modern populations, that raises an interesting question of whether the lineages are over-represented compared to autosomal genetics, or whether it is basically 90% replacement with a small contribution from the previous inhabitants, varying by region. So i'm still unconvinced but it's interesting.

Longbowman
11-26-2013, 12:40 AM
Sorry but you are just full of shit and don't know what you are talking about longbowman. You didn't read any of those papers or even the summaries, and if you haven't read all that or a hundred others you don't even know the basics of what's going on.



This is "the fossil record" that's been argued to be out of africa. However, it's proven not to be. You didn't read it and don't even understand the basics.

I don't mind posting evidence but you are at a stage of just looking things up on wikipedia and yet completely sure of yourself. Even the guy who invented out of africa theory has long since disavowed it, it's false.

Perhaps you are Neanderthal. It's thought that traits such as autism originated with them, after all.

Prisoner Of Ice
11-26-2013, 12:54 AM
Perhaps you are Neanderthal. It's thought that traits such as autism originated with them, after all.
They had a much greater encephalization ratio than humans today. Much bigger neocortex. So if I am a neanderthal guess that explains my 145 IQ. But I guess by my hyperbrachycephalic head that I am actually closer to original cromag.

Longbowman
11-26-2013, 12:56 AM
They had a much greater encephalization ratio than humans today. Much bigger neocortex. So if I am a neanderthal guess that explains my 145 IQ. But I guess by my hyperbrachycephalic head that I am actually closer to original cromag.

True, autistic people are often very clever. Your 'hyperbrachycephalic head' proves nothing, though. Why don't we all have them, if we're all the descendants of cro-magnons and no-one else?

Virtuous
11-26-2013, 12:58 AM
Cromags were also dolicho.

Prisoner Of Ice
11-26-2013, 12:59 AM
True, autistic people are often very clever. Your 'hyperbrachycephalic head' proves nothing, though. Why don't we all have them, if we're all the descendants of cro-magnons and no-one else?

Why do scandinavians have more blonde hair than spaniards and why is there a gradient outwards from its origin point? I guess that we will never know it's all just random lol

armenianbodyhair
11-26-2013, 01:00 AM
lizardjews

Prisoner Of Ice
11-26-2013, 01:00 AM
Cromags were also dolicho.

Really? Then it must come from some place else. Perhaps I am white mongol after all. Seems to be in mountainy places, mainly.

Longbowman
11-26-2013, 01:02 AM
But Europeans come in all shapes and sizes. Regardless, we are of course the descendants of cro-magnons. Cro-magnons are just early Europeans, who themselves came from earlier humans, with a considerable amount of Neanderthal admixture, more than the zero suggested by Malta, and less than the wildly speculative 50% suggested by Melonhead. Before this our ancestors, stretching back perhaps 100 or 200,000 years, or perhaps a bit sooner, came from more primitive versions of Homo Sapiens in the horn of Africa. The last major migration out of the Horn was 50,000 years ago, and associated with European clades of haplogroup E.

Prisoner Of Ice
11-26-2013, 01:03 AM
True, autistic people are often very clever. Your 'hyperbrachycephalic head' proves nothing, though. Why don't we all have them, if we're all the descendants of cro-magnons and no-one else?

I'm definitely not autistic leaning, or aspie leaning. But I find it interesting that thick corpus collusum in einstein is a mark of genius, in aspies it's a mark of a mental disorder. Basically, social skills are deception and they are valued today over logic, and I find that more than a little disturbing.

And anyone trying to push that point, I would be careful of believing anything they say. Because logic lol.

Neanderthal
11-26-2013, 01:04 AM
But Europeans come in all shapes and sizes. Regardless, we are of course the descendants of cro-magnons. Cro-magnons are just early Europeans, who themselves came from earlier humans, with a considerable amount of Neanderthal admixture, more than the zero suggested by Malta, and less than the wildly speculative 50% suggested by Melonhead. Before this our ancestors, stretching back perhaps 100 or 200,000 years, or perhaps a bit sooner, came from more primitive versions of Homo Sapiens in the horn of Africa. The last major migration out of the Horn was 50,000 years ago, and associated with European clades of haplogroup E.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4psKYpfnYs

Longbowman
11-26-2013, 01:06 AM
I'm definitely not autistic leaning, or aspie leaning. But I find it interesting that thick corpus collusum in einstein is a mark of genius, in aspies it's a mark of a mental disorder. Basically, social skills are deception and they are valued today over logic, and I find that more than a little disturbing.

And anyone trying to push that point, I would be careful of believing anything they say. Because logic lol.

Fortuitously I am blessed with both, but we need social skills to interact with society. We are a social animal, after all, that is our strength, or one of them. Without social skills we would fall, without intelligence we would simply degenerate. They're both essential, it's just one's a tad more essential than the other.


Why do scandinavians have more blonde hair than spaniards and why is there a gradient outwards from its origin point? I guess that we will never know it's all just random lol


Presumably because blonde hair did not develop parallel to Europeans, but rather, once Europeans had developed, some developed blonde hair, and these were for various reasons more successful in more northerly locations. Perhaps blonde hair originated there, though some people suggest Neanderthals had it, too. Though, of course, our cousins the Orang-Otans are all famously natural redheads :rolleyes2:

Longbowman
11-26-2013, 01:07 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4psKYpfnYs

Be quiet or we'll take back that nice deal where we let you enrich a bit of uranium.

Prisoner Of Ice
11-26-2013, 01:21 AM
But Europeans come in all shapes and sizes. Regardless, we are of course the descendants of cro-magnons.

Based on what? Cromag 1 has never been directly dated and it looks just like a typical french skull of the 1400s-1800s. Aside from that the most recent 'cromag' skull is heavily mixed with neanderthal and doesn't show up til 35k bc in central europe.



Cro-magnons are just early Europeans, who themselves came from earlier humans,

Sure but when did they come? How much migration was there before the wheel? To all evidence there's actually very little migration. Certainly not one way mass migration like posited in OoA. At the time OoA is supposed to be going on all of india is occupied and there is continuous cultures in place in each area that don't share technology. So they didn't go into india from africa. So it's rather mysterious how asians came to exist, it's like they were always there or something.



with a considerable amount of Neanderthal admixture, more than the zero suggested by Malta, and less than the wildly speculative 50% suggested by Melonhead.

The amount is probably about 15% for europeans. All the neanderthals sequenced had rh- blood. None of the early man sequenced besides them did and it radiates out of their territory in the west.

Since it's a neutral or even negative selected gene then there must be at least 15% neanderthal ancestry in europeans for this to occur.


Before this our ancestors, stretching back perhaps 100 or 200,000 years, or perhaps a bit sooner, came from more primitive versions of Homo Sapiens in the horn of Africa.

Archaeology says the opposite, that they came to africa. All the big finds in africa are on the edge of the horn. Where in glacial times you can walk straight across whole horn directly to india.


The last major migration out of the Horn was 50,000 years ago, and associated with European clades of haplogroup E.
Nope, this is just incorrect. Even in wikipedia they talk about "backmigration" of the E clade. The E clade came into africa with the natufians who are the ones who formed egypt. Only in last couple thousand years has e1b become a big force in SSA. Look up banto expansion to get some details.

If africa is where everything started there'd be many genes from africa under selection, but there's not. There's only malaria genes under selection in africa, and european genes.

If africa was were it all started that's where we would find the most recent clades and gene variants, but we dont.

Out of Africa actually depends on racial separation coming from genetic drift. Meaning one tiny group went and colonized all middle east after being separate from others a very long time, and so on for each racial divide. For this to be correct implies without fail that selection on genes is very rare and also that populations were incredulously low (worldwide effective populations under 2000 for millions of years). However we now know there's thousands of genes under selection, virtually all of them originating in europe or asia. So basically that's it, it's false.

Out of Africa also theorized for a while that human expansion from africa came about due to one big gene, fox p2. Then theys equenced neanderthals, and guess what? They have the modern variant, and it's probably even where it originated.

It's always been hypothetical speculation based onlu on circumstancial evidence. No out of africa paper mentions archaeology at all, they just make up some numbers (which are now shown to be impossible).

Neanderthal
11-26-2013, 01:22 AM
Be quiet or we'll take back that nice deal where we let you enrich a bit of uranium.

In all seriousness, you should look your own path, reach your own conclusions; this world is about viewpoints and subjectivity, but objectivity should be our goal to strive. Teachers, are often biased and have thier own agendas (this comes from a guy whose mother is a teacher and his father, [actually step father] is a college profesor with a major in History), they are good guides for starters, but you have to look the facts for yourself, and try to be the more objective as possible.

By the way, I have learned more by myself than all my years in school, I have ditched university two times, i'm no satisfied with some 'teaching methods.'

The fact I posted a picture of myself in members pictures thread, and by looking at my writting style amongst other things, and you still don't realize i'm not actually Iranian tells me a lot about yourself. For starters two things.

1. You believe everything you're told.

2. You don't look shit up for yourself.

Longbowman
11-26-2013, 01:25 AM
In all seriousness, you should look your own path, reach your own conclusions; this world is about viewpoints and subjectivity, but objectivity should be our goal to strive. Teachers, are often biased and have thier own agendas (this comes from a guy whose mother is a teacher and his father, [actually step father] is a college profesor with a major in History), they are good guides for starters, but you have to look the facts for yourself, and try to be the more objective as possible.

By the way, I have learned more by myself than all my years in school, I have ditched university two times, i'm no satisfied with some 'teaching methods.'

The fact I posted a picture of myself in members pictures thread, and by looking at my writting style amongst other things, and you still don't realize i'm not actually Iranian tells me a lot about yourself. For starters two things.

1. You believe everything you're told.

2. You don't look shit up for yourself.

I am quite trusting. That's a good thing. Dropping out of university twice? That's a bad thing. Not everyone's out to hurt you. Not everyone's in a conspiracy.

Yes, I did figure that you weren't Iranian, this being a *European* community. People put silly things on their flags all the time, which annoys me as I would like to use them as an easy quick-reference cheatsheet. But I've amused myself pretending you are. I must say I didn't see your picture on the thread, perhaps I missed it?

Prisoner Of Ice
11-26-2013, 01:28 AM
In all seriousness, you should look your own path, reach your own conclusions; this world is about viewpoints and subjectivity, but objectivity should be our goal to strive. Teachers, are often biased and have thier own agendas (this comes from a guy whose mother is a teacher and his father, [actually step father] is a college profesor with a major in History), they are good guides for starters, but you have to look the facts for yourself, and try to be the more objective as possible.

By the way, I have learned more by myself than all my years in school, I have ditched university two times, i'm no satisfied with some 'teaching methods.'

The fact I posted a picture of myself in members pictures thread, and by looking at my writting style amongst other things, and you still don't realize i'm not actually Iranian tells me a lot about yourself. For starters two things.

1. You believe everything you're told.

2. You don't look shit up for yourself.

Especially since guy who came up with it doesn't believe in it any more.

Longbowman
11-26-2013, 01:32 AM
[QUOTE]Based on what? Cromag 1 has never been directly dated and it looks just like a typical french skull of the 1400s-1800s. Aside from that the most recent 'cromag' skull is heavily mixed with neanderthal and doesn't show up til 35k bc in central europe.

I could be missing something, but I think we agree here.


Sure but when did they come? How much migration was there before the wheel? To all evidence there's actually very little migration. Certainly not one way mass migration like posited in OoA. At the time OoA is supposed to be going on all of india is occupied and there is continuous cultures in place in each area that don't share technology. So they didn't go into india from africa. So it's rather mysterious how asians came to exist, it's like they were always there or something.


I don't actually mind about how much/little migration there was. I suspect you're right, there was only a little. That said, there are manifold methods (genetics, fossil records, archaeology) to suggest Asians and Europeans are more recently related than we are to Blacks. Just for example, we have the neanderthal admixture, which exists in all humans barring subsaharans.


The amount is probably about 15% for europeans. All the neanderthals sequenced had rh- blood. None of the early man sequenced besides them did and it radiates out of their territory in the west.


It isn't but it doesn't matter. 15% of Europeans do have rh- blood, but rh- blood doesn't correlate with known neanderthal ancestry (less than 1% of non-Europeans - but 7% of African-Americans - have it) and Melanesians in particular are known to have high neanderthal/denisovan admixture.


Since it's a neutral or even negative selected gene then there must be at least 15% neanderthal ancestry in europeans for this to occur.


No. Demonstrated above.


Archaeology says the opposite, that they came to africa. All the big finds in africa are on the edge of the horn. Where in glacial times you can walk straight across whole horn directly to india.


Also no. Look it up. Plus, Africa to India is a hell of a long way by foot. Israel, Jordan and the Sinai have the first Neanderthal fossils, anyway.


Nope, this is just incorrect. Even in wikipedia they talk about "backmigration" of the E clade. The E clade came into africa with the natufians who are the ones who formed egypt. Only in last couple thousand years has e1b become a big force in SSA. Look up banto expansion to get some details.


Fair enough, obviously I prefer this. But then, I'm biased.


If africa is where everything started there's be genes from africa under selection, but there's not.


This just doesn't make sense. Of course we have shared genes.


If africa was were it all started that's where we would find the most recent clades and gene variants, but we dont.


No, it's where we would find the most ancient clades, obviously.


Out of Africa actually depends on racial separation coming from genetic drift. Meaning one tiny group went and colonized all middle east after being separate from others a very long time, and so on for each racial divide. For this to be correct implies without fail that selection on genes is very rare and also that populations were incredulously low (worldwide effective populations under 2000 for millions of years). However we now know there's thousands of genes under selection, virtually all of them originating in europe or asia. So basically that's it, it's false.


The world population reached 1 billion in 1830. Now it's 7.5. Population explosion happens rapidly. Also, European and Asian populations have of course developed unique genomes. Furthermore, no one said the founder populations were as small as you say they are.


Out of Africa also theorized for a while that human expansion from africa came about due to one big gene, fox p2. Then theys equenced neanderthals, and guess what? They have the modern variant, and it's probably even where it originated.


Ok.



It's always been hypothetical speculation based onlu on circumstancial evidence. No out of africa paper mentions archaeology at all, they just make up some numbers (which are now shown to be impossible)

Of course they mention *palaeontology. I've already been through this. You haven't refuted it.

Prisoner Of Ice
11-27-2013, 08:35 AM
[QUOTE=Melonhead;2132678]

I could be missing something, but I think we agree here.



I don't actually mind about how much/little migration there was. I suspect you're right, there was only a little. That said, there are manifold methods (genetics, fossil records, archaeology) to suggest Asians and Europeans are more recently related than we are to Blacks. Just for example, we have the neanderthal admixture, which exists in all humans barring subsaharans.



It isn't but it doesn't matter. 15% of Europeans do have rh- blood, but rh- blood doesn't correlate with known neanderthal ancestry (less than 1% of non-Europeans - but 7% of African-Americans - have it) and Melanesians in particular are known to have high neanderthal/denisovan admixture.



No. Demonstrated above.



Also no. Look it up. Plus, Africa to India is a hell of a long way by foot. Israel, Jordan and the Sinai have the first Neanderthal fossils, anyway.

No what? There was never land bridge on southern part of horn or across straight of hormuz? You need to look it up I guess. There's also fresh water mussel fossils in both so obviously that's not always been the case. It doesn't take thousands of years to walk from africa to india. This is actually the route out of africa is thought to take in the first place.



This just doesn't make sense. Of course we have shared genes.

Go back to my example.

Say that the polish have 10% blonde genes for blue eyes. Say the mongols 0%. So if you have some country founded by mongols and poles, and 5% of them have blue eye genes, how much ancestry did they pull from each ethnicity. Like I said, it's basic math. You seem to be trying to argue dishonestly but if you can't grasp what I am saying I don't know what to tell you.



No, it's where we would find the most ancient clades, obviously.

There's clades for other genes with neanderthal at the top. In fact there's more genes like that than there are with africans as oldest.

Moreover, if they all came out of africa, why would the youngest clades come out and oldest stay? It can just as easily be the other way, and in fact that makes much more sense because more archaic remnants are remnants because they are cut off from everyone else, as sub saharan africans were for great lengths of time.




The world population reached 1 billion in 1830. Now it's 7.5. Population explosion happens rapidly. Also, European and Asian populations have of course developed unique genomes. Furthermore, no one said the founder populations were as small as you say they are.

Yes they do. Read out of africa papers. In fact it's impossible for drift to cause racial divides without those small populations, which is basic math. You keep pointing out flaws in the very theory you are trying to defend.





Ok.



Of course they mention *palaeontology. I've already been through this. You haven't refuted it.

African have very little rh-. African americans are taking genes up on a selective basis, there's more than mixing going on, they are actually changing their character due to positively selected genes. That's why they are 7% rh- now.

There's lots of traits all linked together that all probably have neanderthal origin or origin in people who mixed most to neanderthals at least. Left handedness or ambidextrousness (like me), red hair, IQ over 140, extra vertebrae, thick short legs but long torso, rh- blood type, large brain size, greek toe, flexible midfoot, low blood pressure, longevity, and quite a few more. Not to mention all the disease resistance genes that come from neanderthals.

http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/neanderbasque.htm

People like basques and irish and tuscans and ashkenazi jews have these traits with the highest regularity, all linked by neanderthal DNA.

Longbowman
11-27-2013, 01:19 PM
[QUOTE]No what? There was never land bridge on southern part of horn or across straight of hormuz? You need to look it up I guess. There's also fresh water mussel fossils in both so obviously that's not always been the case. It doesn't take thousands of years to walk from africa to india. This is actually the route out of africa is thought to take in the first place.

I'm a bit busy now, I'll do it later, BUT even if there were a landbridge, it's still a hell of a long way by foot. The Straight of Hormuz is not India-the Horn, it's India-Arabia. Then the Red Sea divides Arabia and the Horn. Still, I don't think this is too relevant so let's move on.


Say that the polish have 10% blonde genes for blue eyes. Say the mongols 0%. So if you have some country founded by mongols and poles, and 5% of them have blue eye genes, how much ancestry did they pull from each ethnicity. Like I said, it's basic math. You seem to be trying to argue dishonestly but if you can't grasp what I am saying I don't know what to tell you.


That would be true only until mutations started to occur, and it would also only be true ~on average~. The blue eyed mutation occurred after Europeans came to exist, of course, perhaps as little as 6-7,000 years ago, so it's not relevant. (It also arose in Melanesians). It's not actually a colour per se, but actually a dearth of melanin. The more you know :)

But you're missing my point, which is that we share 99.99% of our DNA with Subsaharans. Obviously the eyecolour gene is not one of them. Our more recent ancestry and more recent physical/mental developments (of course, hominids developed quickly) of course differ because we developed separately (we do essentially agree, but to vastly different extents).


There's clades for other genes with neanderthal at the top. In fact there's more genes like that than there are with africans as oldest.


Neanderthals at the top? What do you mean? This sentence doesn't make sense, I'm afraid.


Moreover, if they all came out of africa, why would the youngest clades come out and oldest stay? It can just as easily be the other way, and in fact that makes much more sense because more archaic remnants are remnants because they are cut off from everyone else, as sub saharan africans were for great lengths of time.


No, no clade in particular would leave. All clades are ultimately developed from one founder many tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years ago. No group is 100% on clade in particular. So say group A splits into groups A1 and A2 and A1 moves away. From that point, mutations occur, but in both groups, equally (more or less). So I don't think this argument works for either side.


Yes they do. Read out of africa papers. In fact it's impossible for drift to cause racial divides without those small populations, which is basic math. You keep pointing out flaws in the very theory you are trying to defend.


Population bottlenecks don't permanently affect diversity for eventually an expanded population will develop their own mutations and genetics. Sort of like how inbreeding can be 'cured' with a few generations of outbreeding. This can be seen in non-human species that have veered on the edge of extinction like rhinos, cheetahs and a wide array of animals. Remember, once upon a time, only a single organism existed in all creation (of course, that organism reproduced asexually).


African have very little rh-. African americans are taking genes up on a selective basis, there's more than mixing going on, they are actually changing their character due to positively selected genes. That's why they are 7% rh- now.


Yeah that was just a side point, the main point was that it doesn't correlate truly with neanderthal/denisovan ancestry.


There's lots of traits all linked together that all probably have neanderthal origin or origin in people who mixed most to neanderthals at least. Left handedness or ambidextrousness (like me), red hair, IQ over 140, extra vertebrae, thick short legs but long torso, rh- blood type, large brain size, greek toe, flexible midfoot, low blood pressure, longevity, and quite a few more. Not to mention all the disease resistance genes that come from neanderthals.


Left handedness? Source that. Red hair is true. IQ might be true. Extra vertebrae? Thick short legs is definitely neanderthal but most Europeans don't have them. Brain size could be related to neanderthals. I don't know what a 'greek toe' is. Longevity isn't a European trait though, is it? It's hardly endemic to populations with some Neanderthal ancestry. The longest living people are from Okinawa, b-t-dubs. I do agree Neanderthals have affected us hugely, of course.


People like basques and irish and tuscans and ashkenazi jews have these traits with the highest regularity, all linked by neanderthal DNA.

Sure but there's not a whole lot of variation between European ethnicities vis-a-vis Neanderthal ancestry (especially Irish/British, Tuscan/Northern-Central Italian and so on. There is some between races but not huge amounts.

Prisoner Of Ice
11-27-2013, 04:29 PM
I'm a bit busy now, I'll do it later, BUT even if there were a landbridge, it's still a hell of a long way by foot. The Straight of Hormuz is not India-the Horn, it's India-Arabia. Then the Red Sea divides Arabia and the Horn. Still, I don't think this is too relevant so let's move on.

I think your understanding of things is a bit crazy if you think that's irrelevant. There's no massive migrations of whole people in short times before invention of wheel. Under multiregionalism you just need one person to make it to one village, the selected gene will eventually get fixed around the whole world.




That would be true only until mutations started to occur, and it would also only be true ~on average~. The blue eyed mutation occurred after Europeans came to exist, of course, perhaps as little as 6-7,000 years ago, so it's not relevant. (It also arose in Melanesians). It's not actually a colour per se, but actually a dearth of melanin. The more you know :)

All of the people who have blue eyes who've had it scanned, got it through common ancestry. I always get a kick out of the idea that phenotype just crops up without any relation to ancestry. Well, it's wrong. You can have evolution of similar genes by mutation but when you sequence them you can tell they came from different sources. Blue eyes and skin genes don't.

Funny you turn around from there and try to tell me how skin genes work. There's dozens of genes for darking human skin in SSA. So if you really think it got lost due to drift we can calculate out how long it might take to happen, that's exactly what OoA papers do, and the numbers for effective population and the time involved are not plausible.




But you're missing my point, which is that we share 99.99% of our DNA with Subsaharans.

False. You don't even share 99.9% of your genes with your brothers and sisters. The ridiculous estimates of chimps being 99.6% similar to humans are now known to be completely false. They are similar over some fixed area all mammals are similar, that's it. Base pair by base pair very little lines up, and we had not even fully sequenced a chimp until recently so that should tell you how reliable this is.

Also, ultimately who gives a shit? This is not relavent to the discussion, this is part of what your obvious political bias is trying to push down everyone's throat. Reality is reality, it's nothing to do with politics.



No, no clade in particular would leave. All clades are ultimately developed from one founder many tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years ago. No group is 100% on clade in particular.

For a clade to form it must separate, and there must have been a time where they were largely separated, or else none of this works. OoA says that each clade formed by escaping its parent clade.


So say group A splits into groups A1 and A2 and A1 moves away. From that point, mutations occur, but in both groups, equally (more or less). So I don't think this argument works for either side.

That's not really true. Mutations happen all the time but they get either weeded out or fixed. If there's no selection pressure though then they don't go anywhere. Like lungfish. They are at equillibrium.


Population bottlenecks don't permanently affect diversity for eventually an expanded population will develop their own mutations and genetics. Sort of like how inbreeding can be 'cured' with a few generations of outbreeding. This can be seen in non-human species that have veered on the edge of extinction like rhinos, cheetahs and a wide array of animals. Remember, once upon a time, only a single organism existed in all creation (of course, that organism reproduced asexually).

But that's the whole idea behind OoA and formation of race differences.

Longbowman
11-27-2013, 05:08 PM
[QUOTE]I think your understanding of things is a bit crazy if you think that's irrelevant. There's no massive migrations of whole people in short times before invention of wheel. Under multiregionalism you just need one person to make it to one village, the selected gene will eventually get fixed around the whole world.

Don't be ridiculous. Even under the multiregional theory a group of humans or proto-humans or hominids would have had to migrate without the wheel. Don't be stupid.



All of the people who have blue eyes who've had it scanned, got it through common ancestry. I always get a kick out of the idea that phenotype just crops up without any relation to ancestry. Well, it's wrong. You can have evolution of similar genes by mutation but when you sequence them you can tell they came from different sources. Blue eyes and skin genes don't.


Absolutely true, all blue-eyed Europeans share ancestry. Of course, so do the none blue-eyed ones, but your point is correct. The gene also exists separately in melanesians, but you don't understand. The fact that the gene exists doesn't prove your point, or mine. It just proves the gene arose after the races split. Attempt to date the gene vary from 5,000BC to neanderthal times.


Funny you turn around from there and try to tell me how skin genes work. There's dozens of genes for darking human skin in SSA. So if you really think it got lost due to drift we can calculate out how long it might take to happen, that's exactly what OoA papers due, and the numbers for effective population and the time involved are not plausible.


Whether or not you or I are correct the genes separated presumably for reasons of sexual or environmental selection.


False. You don't even share 99.9% of your genes with your brothers and sisters. The ridiculous estimates of chimps being 99.6% similar to humans are now known to be completely false. They are similar over some fixed area all mammals are similar, that's it. Base pair by base pair very little lines up, and we had not even fulling sequenced a chimp until recently so that should tell you how reliable this is.


If you include junk DNA you share 99% of your DNA with chimps. Obviously that 1% is considerably more important. The general idea is that each segment of our DNA differs only slightly - on average by 1%. Which is very important. If it's been proven false, please give me a source.


Also, ultimately who gives a shit? This is not relavent to the discussion, this is part of what your obvious political bias is trying to push down everyone's throat. Reality is reality, it's nothing to do with politics.


I agree it's not relevant. I haven't got a political bias. You do, though. You want to be contrarian, separate from other races, unique. And you're engaging in confirmation bias to prove your points. Hypocrite.


For a clade to form it must separate, and there must have been a time where they were largely separated, or else none of this works. OoA says that each clade formed by escaping its parent clade.


No, every so often a mutation occurs. This doesn't have to happen in Y-dna groups, each human will have many mutations. Sometimes they survive and sometimes they don't. For example, if a Y-dna mutation occurs in a male who has no sons, the mutation dies, like Otzi the Iceman's. Each clade forms by a mutation surviving. It's totally random.


That's not really true. Mutations happen all the time but they get either weeded out or fixed. If there's no selection pressure though then they don't go anywhere. Like lungfish. They are at equillibrium.


I thought I said that? Actually lungfish will still have mutations, the mutations just won't survive because lungfish can't really be improved, as you say.


But that's the whole idea behind OoA and formation of race differences.

What do you mean?

leviathan_cl
11-27-2013, 07:28 PM
not surprised, i would even have sex with a rock when there is enough frustration