Ancient Humans Had Sex With Mystery Species, New DNA Study Shows.

[Virtuous]

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'

[Longbowman]

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]

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...oric-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...n-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/...idze-2013.html

neanderthal admixture is higher and keeps climbing as genes are identified.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/08...n-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]

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!~!~



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

[Longbowman]

[QUOTE=Melonhead;2132495]

First off: ancient east africans were not negroid.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/09...oric-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...n-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/...idze-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...n-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]

If you go by blood type, then B is the newest.

[Neanderthal]

Gotta love the 'real scientists' that go by the bullshit they teach us in school.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

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]

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...oric-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...n-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/...idze-2013.html

neanderthal admixture is higher and keeps climbing as genes are identified.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/08...n-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]

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.