posted
Is the The Max Plank Institute trying to develop a new multiregional theory? Researchers from the Max Plank Institute have "proven", that Neanderthals are native to Europe, and all populations carry Neanderthal genes except Africans.
Is this research attempting to imply that whites are direct descendants of the Neanderthals, instead of anatomically modern humans (amh) from Africa? I think it is. This model for the raise of white or pale skinned in Europe lacks congruence because the Neanderthal like the first Europeans and Europeans up to 1500 BC, when whites migrated out of the Caucasus mountains, into Western Europe and the Middle East, was inhabited totally by Negro people.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other Max Plank Institute researchers have promoted the idea that the Denisovans were the ancestors for Mongoloid people. This too is false.
Any way, Denisovans were also Blacks.
Promotion of the Denisovans and Neanderthals as the ancestors of whites and Mongoloid people are the foundations for a new multiregional theory for the origin of man. .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Is the The Max Plank Institute trying to develop a new multiregional theory? Researchers from the Max Plank Institute have "proven", that Neanderthals are native to Europe, and all populations carry Neanderthal genes except Africans.
Is this research attempting to imply that whites are direct descendants of the Neanderthals, instead of anatomically modern humans (amh) from Africa? I think it is. This model for the raise of white or pale skinned in Europe lacks congruence because the Neanderthal like the first Europeans and Europeans up to 1500 BC, when whites migrated out of the Caucasus mountains, into Western Europe and the Middle East, was inhabited totally by Negro people.
Yes, they do. I have seen certain folks make arguments that they don't descent from blacks (well actually some used the word nigger). Which is essentially what this comes down to. So they created a theory of a "new" basal at west Eurasia. And large amounts of Neanderthal DNA. Which led to the way hey look at are, as a "separate species" from the "blacks/ niggers". This is what we read subliminally in quite a few "reports". Simply put the white audience has been fed a lie. And they have consumed this lie. They too are a victim of this lie.
A few years back I saw this tv-show. Where these paleontologist Dutch twin brothers Alfons and Adrie Kennis, stated that commercially seen pale ontologically it was more attractive to creature "white looking" species. Though they were aware of them being black.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Is the The Max Plank Institute trying to develop a new multiregional theory? Researchers from the Max Plank Institute have "proven", that Neanderthals are native to Europe, and all populations carry Neanderthal genes except Africans.
Is this research attempting to imply that whites are direct descendants of the Neanderthals, instead of anatomically modern humans (amh) from Africa? I think it is. This model for the raise of white or pale skinned in Europe lacks congruence because the Neanderthal like the first Europeans and Europeans up to 1500 BC, when whites migrated out of the Caucasus mountains, into Western Europe and the Middle East, was inhabited totally by Negro people.
Yes, they do. I have seen certain folks make arguments that they don't descent from blacks (well actually some used the word nigger). Which is essentially what this comes down to. So they created a theory of a "new" basal at west Eurasia. And large amounts of Neanderthal DNA. Which led to the way hey look at are, as a "separate species" from the "blacks/ niggers". This is what we read subliminally in quite a few "reports". Simply put the white audience has been fed a lie. And they have consumed this lie. They too are a victim of this lie.
A few years back I saw this tv-show. Where these paleontologist Dutch twin brothers Alfons and Adrie Kennis, stated that commercially seen pale ontologically it was more attractive to creature "white looking" species. Though they were aware of them being black.
It is interesting that the work of the Kennis brothers has become the norm because of its presentation of ancient man as "white", when in reality "whites" kave been a minority of the world populations.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Is the The Max Plank Institute trying to develop a new multiregional theory? Researchers from the Max Plank Institute have "proven", that Neanderthals are native to Europe, and all populations carry Neanderthal genes except Africans.
Is this research attempting to imply that whites are direct descendants of the Neanderthals, instead of anatomically modern humans (amh) from Africa? I think it is. This model for the raise of white or pale skinned in Europe lacks congruence because the Neanderthal like the first Europeans and Europeans up to 1500 BC, when whites migrated out of the Caucasus mountains, into Western Europe and the Middle East, was inhabited totally by Negro people.
Yes, they do. I have seen certain folks make arguments that they don't descent from blacks (well actually some used the word nigger). Which is essentially what this comes down to. So they created a theory of a "new" basal at west Eurasia. And large amounts of Neanderthal DNA. Which led to the way hey look at are, as a "separate species" from the "blacks/ niggers". This is what we read subliminally in quite a few "reports". Simply put the white audience has been fed a lie. And they have consumed this lie. They too are a victim of this lie.
A few years back I saw this tv-show. Where these paleontologist Dutch twin brothers Alfons and Adrie Kennis, stated that commercially seen pale ontologically it was more attractive to creature "white looking" species. Though they were aware of them being black.
It is interesting that the work of the Kennis brothers has become the norm because of its presentation of ancient man as "white", when in reality "whites" kave been a minority of the world populations.
.
This is the interview I was referring at earlier on. It's in Dutch. But if there any Dutch, readers (listers) they will understand. They review several specimen. Especially from Europe and Africa.
posted
Yes. Neanderthal was black skinned based upon their published genotype. However As I said before the “stereotypical” Negroid may NOT be what the first AMH looked like. I contend that the stereotypical “Negroid” feature is a new adaptation. Remember black does not equal Negroid( in my view). Neanderthal carried all genes related to black skinned BUT carried the EDAR genes related to thick and possible straight hair like East Asians. So the taken together the illustration does not work.
Putting everything together first OOA most like looked like Australoids rather than stereotypical modern African Negroids. Features change remarkably fast. Eg Amarnas. They are most closely related to modern populations they share very little resemblance to. Khoi-San. Who would of thought.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also the belief that Africans do NOT carry Neaderthal ancestry was held 5-10years ago. That has changed since then based upon recent papers(2016). Remember the racist Paabo is one of the key players at Max Planck Inst.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Is the The Max Plank Institute trying to develop a new multiregional theory? Researchers from the Max Plank Institute have "proven", that Neanderthals are native to Europe, and all populations carry Neanderthal genes except Africans.
Is this research attempting to imply that whites are direct descendants of the Neanderthals, instead of anatomically modern humans (amh) from Africa? I think it is. This model for the raise of white or pale skinned in Europe lacks congruence because the Neanderthal like the first Europeans and Europeans up to 1500 BC, when whites migrated out of the Caucasus mountains, into Western Europe and the Middle East, was inhabited totally by Negro people.
Yes, they do. I have seen certain folks make arguments that they don't descent from blacks (well actually some used the word nigger). Which is essentially what this comes down to. So they created a theory of a "new" basal at west Eurasia. And large amounts of Neanderthal DNA. Which led to the way hey look at are, as a "separate species" from the "blacks/ niggers". This is what we read subliminally in quite a few "reports". Simply put the white audience has been fed a lie. And they have consumed this lie. They too are a victim of this lie.
A few years back I saw this tv-show. Where these paleontologist Dutch twin brothers Alfons and Adrie Kennis, stated that commercially seen pale ontologically it was more attractive to creature "white looking" species. Though they were aware of them being black.
It is interesting that the work of the Kennis brothers has become the norm because of its presentation of ancient man as "white", when in reality "whites" kave been a minority of the world populations.
.
Whites have actually not been the minority of the world's population, when Whites invaded India, China, Persia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, Siberia, the Levant, and North Africa in Ancient times; they were a significant chunk of the world population and outright overwhelmed entire black and brown civilizations by their numbers.
Proof of this. is evident in this Tacitus quote which Mike has posted several times here already:
quote: 4. For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.
And they likely caused the "migration of the sea peoples" as Mike has pointed out before:
quote: Much about this badly defined group of peoples remains a mystery. In the eyes of the migration proponents they may have come from as far as northern Europe, or, more probably, from the Black Sea region, i.e. the Balkans and Asia Minor, were armed with straight swords and, crossing the northern Aegean and Anatolia, invaded the coastal Levant and possibly defeated some of the regional powers whose power was apparently declining at this time, but there is no evidence that this happened. The Germanic Völkerwanderung which brought about the destruction of the western Roman Empire in the fifth century CE seems to have inspired this theory which leaves many questions unanswered. The origins and suggested successes of the Sea Peoples have yet to be explained satisfactorily. Unlike the conventional powers of the Levant who relied on the chariotry as the main fighting force in field battles, the Sea Peoples armies consisted of infantry armed with swords and javelins. How slow foot-soldiers could so often overcome professional charioteers whose bows had a wider reach than their own javelins and whose speed of retreat could be great, is unclear. They may have confronted their enemies in terrain unsuited for chariots, posing enough of a threat for the defenders to employ unsupported infantry, against whom the superior weapons of the invaders might give them enough of an edge to tip the scales in their favour. But then, why would the local forces accept a challenge under such unfavourable terms? The Middle Eastern powers were in a weakened state, possibly because of famine or some other natural catastrophe. If there had been a period of droughts in the region, this might also explain why the Sea Peoples with their children, women and old people kept on moving south instead of settling in the conquered territories."
Their large numbers were due to the solar radiation outbreak that occurred 35,000 years ago in which large numbers of Africans and Indians were exposed to huge amounts of radiation causing widespread albinism, and forcing them to retreat into mountain type landscapes, into caves or into the Northern hemisphere completely.
And even up till WWI, whites were at least 45% or 35%? of the world population, until their numbers started plummeting in the aftermath of WWII and snowballing with the start of the 60's and feminism/careerism, sterilization/birth clinics, rise of the consumerist/materialist cultures of the West, giving women access to college education and the right to vote, the housing and financial bubbles and economic depressions etc etc etc.
And Whites are going to and have figured out a way to artificially increase their population/demographic up to their old levels pre-WWI by the plan I uncovered involving the refugee crisis in my other "holy ****" thread, PLEASE LOOK INTO IT!
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Is the The Max Plank Institute trying to develop a new multiregional theory? Researchers from the Max Plank Institute have "proven", that Neanderthals are native to Europe, and all populations carry Neanderthal genes except Africans.
Is this research attempting to imply that whites are direct descendants of the Neanderthals, instead of anatomically modern humans (amh) from Africa? I think it is. This model for the raise of white or pale skinned in Europe lacks congruence because the Neanderthal like the first Europeans and Europeans up to 1500 BC, when whites migrated out of the Caucasus mountains, into Western Europe and the Middle East, was inhabited totally by Negro people.
Yes, they do. I have seen certain folks make arguments that they don't descent from blacks (well actually some used the word nigger). Which is essentially what this comes down to. So they created a theory of a "new" basal at west Eurasia. And large amounts of Neanderthal DNA. Which led to the way hey look at are, as a "separate species" from the "blacks/ niggers". This is what we read subliminally in quite a few "reports". Simply put the white audience has been fed a lie. And they have consumed this lie. They too are a victim of this lie.
A few years back I saw this tv-show. Where these paleontologist Dutch twin brothers Alfons and Adrie Kennis, stated that commercially seen pale ontologically it was more attractive to creature "white looking" species. Though they were aware of them being black.
It is interesting that the work of the Kennis brothers has become the norm because of its presentation of ancient man as "white", when in reality "whites" kave been a minority of the world populations.
.
Whites have actually not been the minority of the world's population, when Whites invaded India, China, Persia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, Siberia, the Levant, and North Africa in Ancient times; they were a significant chunk of the world population and outright overwhelmed entire black and brown civilizations by their numbers.
Proof of this. is evident in this Tacitus quote which Mike has posted several times here already:
quote: 4. For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.
And they likely caused the "migration of the sea peoples" as Mike has pointed out before:
quote: Much about this badly defined group of peoples remains a mystery. In the eyes of the migration proponents they may have come from as far as northern Europe, or, more probably, from the Black Sea region, i.e. the Balkans and Asia Minor, were armed with straight swords and, crossing the northern Aegean and Anatolia, invaded the coastal Levant and possibly defeated some of the regional powers whose power was apparently declining at this time, but there is no evidence that this happened. The Germanic Völkerwanderung which brought about the destruction of the western Roman Empire in the fifth century CE seems to have inspired this theory which leaves many questions unanswered. The origins and suggested successes of the Sea Peoples have yet to be explained satisfactorily. Unlike the conventional powers of the Levant who relied on the chariotry as the main fighting force in field battles, the Sea Peoples armies consisted of infantry armed with swords and javelins. How slow foot-soldiers could so often overcome professional charioteers whose bows had a wider reach than their own javelins and whose speed of retreat could be great, is unclear. They may have confronted their enemies in terrain unsuited for chariots, posing enough of a threat for the defenders to employ unsupported infantry, against whom the superior weapons of the invaders might give them enough of an edge to tip the scales in their favour. But then, why would the local forces accept a challenge under such unfavourable terms? The Middle Eastern powers were in a weakened state, possibly because of famine or some other natural catastrophe. If there had been a period of droughts in the region, this might also explain why the Sea Peoples with their children, women and old people kept on moving south instead of settling in the conquered territories."
Their large numbers were due to the solar radiation outbreak that occurred 35,000 years ago in which large numbers of Africans and Indians were exposed to huge amounts of radiation causing widespread albinism, and forcing them to retreat into mountain type landscapes, into caves or into the Northern hemisphere completely.
And even up till WWI, whites were at least 45% or 35%? of the world population, until their numbers started plummeting in the aftermath of WWII and snowballing with the start of the 60's and feminism/careerism, sterilization/birth clinics, rise of the consumerist/materialist cultures of the West, giving women access to college education and the right to vote, the housing and financial bubbles and economic depressions etc etc etc.
And Whites are going to and have figured out a way to artificially increase their population/demographic up to their old levels pre-WWI by the plan I uncovered involving the refugee crisis in my other "holy ****" thread, PLEASE LOOK INTO IT!
Whites were never a majority. When they invaded India, China they used military might to defeat the Indian and Chinese armies.
Usually Europeans used a policy of divide -and rule to defeat larger nations. They usually inspired the rejects of these societies and outcasts to join their military force to fight their own nationals. In this way they were able to employ the disaffected to do their dirty work for them.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Is the The Max Plank Institute trying to develop a new multiregional theory? Researchers from the Max Plank Institute have "proven", that Neanderthals are native to Europe, and all populations carry Neanderthal genes except Africans.
Is this research attempting to imply that whites are direct descendants of the Neanderthals, instead of anatomically modern humans (amh) from Africa? I think it is. This model for the raise of white or pale skinned in Europe lacks congruence because the Neanderthal like the first Europeans and Europeans up to 1500 BC, when whites migrated out of the Caucasus mountains, into Western Europe and the Middle East, was inhabited totally by Negro people.
Yes, they do. I have seen certain folks make arguments that they don't descent from blacks (well actually some used the word nigger). Which is essentially what this comes down to. So they created a theory of a "new" basal at west Eurasia. And large amounts of Neanderthal DNA. Which led to the way hey look at are, as a "separate species" from the "blacks/ niggers". This is what we read subliminally in quite a few "reports". Simply put the white audience has been fed a lie. And they have consumed this lie. They too are a victim of this lie.
A few years back I saw this tv-show. Where these paleontologist Dutch twin brothers Alfons and Adrie Kennis, stated that commercially seen pale ontologically it was more attractive to creature "white looking" species. Though they were aware of them being black.
It is interesting that the work of the Kennis brothers has become the norm because of its presentation of ancient man as "white", when in reality "whites" kave been a minority of the world populations.
.
Whites have actually not been the minority of the world's population, when Whites invaded India, China, Persia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, Siberia, the Levant, and North Africa in Ancient times; they were a significant chunk of the world population and outright overwhelmed entire black and brown civilizations by their numbers.
Proof of this. is evident in this Tacitus quote which Mike has posted several times here already:
quote: 4. For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.
And they likely caused the "migration of the sea peoples" as Mike has pointed out before:
quote: Much about this badly defined group of peoples remains a mystery. In the eyes of the migration proponents they may have come from as far as northern Europe, or, more probably, from the Black Sea region, i.e. the Balkans and Asia Minor, were armed with straight swords and, crossing the northern Aegean and Anatolia, invaded the coastal Levant and possibly defeated some of the regional powers whose power was apparently declining at this time, but there is no evidence that this happened. The Germanic Völkerwanderung which brought about the destruction of the western Roman Empire in the fifth century CE seems to have inspired this theory which leaves many questions unanswered. The origins and suggested successes of the Sea Peoples have yet to be explained satisfactorily. Unlike the conventional powers of the Levant who relied on the chariotry as the main fighting force in field battles, the Sea Peoples armies consisted of infantry armed with swords and javelins. How slow foot-soldiers could so often overcome professional charioteers whose bows had a wider reach than their own javelins and whose speed of retreat could be great, is unclear. They may have confronted their enemies in terrain unsuited for chariots, posing enough of a threat for the defenders to employ unsupported infantry, against whom the superior weapons of the invaders might give them enough of an edge to tip the scales in their favour. But then, why would the local forces accept a challenge under such unfavourable terms? The Middle Eastern powers were in a weakened state, possibly because of famine or some other natural catastrophe. If there had been a period of droughts in the region, this might also explain why the Sea Peoples with their children, women and old people kept on moving south instead of settling in the conquered territories."
Their large numbers were due to the solar radiation outbreak that occurred 35,000 years ago in which large numbers of Africans and Indians were exposed to huge amounts of radiation causing widespread albinism, and forcing them to retreat into mountain type landscapes, into caves or into the Northern hemisphere completely.
And even up till WWI, whites were at least 45% or 35%? of the world population, until their numbers started plummeting in the aftermath of WWII and snowballing with the start of the 60's and feminism/careerism, sterilization/birth clinics, rise of the consumerist/materialist cultures of the West, giving women access to college education and the right to vote, the housing and financial bubbles and economic depressions etc etc etc.
And Whites are going to and have figured out a way to artificially increase their population/demographic up to their old levels pre-WWI by the plan I uncovered involving the refugee crisis in my other "holy ****" thread, PLEASE LOOK INTO IT!
Whites were never a majority. When they invaded India, China they used military might to defeat the Indian and Chinese armies.
Usually Europeans used a policy of divide -and rule to defeat larger nations. They usually inspired the rejects of these societies and outcasts to join their military force to fight their own nationals. In this way they were able to employ the disaffected to do their dirty work for them.
.
No Whites were a clear significant chunk of the population, because historically they did not have the technological sophistication and means to destroy Ancient civilizations like Babylon, Assyria, India, China, Erutria, Elam, Persia, Greece etc etc. There are countless records that prove this time and time again even up to the Roman expansion period. Whites did not have "military might" compared to them!
Whites were historically illiterate savage barbarian peoples without sophisticated technology, civilizations, alphabets or writing systems, systems of literacy, science, advanced metallurgy, laws, architecture, engineering, agriculture, philosophy, buildings, settlements, fortifications etc etc etc.
Whites in the Ancient time period ESPECIALLY IN THE BC era were THE HUNS, TURKS AND MONGOLS OF THEIR DAY! THEY WERE JUST LIKE THEM AND FOLLOWED THEIR LIFESTYLE UNTIL THEY TOOK OVER NON-WHITE CIVILIZATIONS IN THE OLD WORLD!
However as has been pointed out before, Whites were able to OVERWHELM and OUTNUMBER those civilizations in history as seen in the migration period and in the barbarian invasions of Persia/India/China all throughout history. They took down many advanced empires BECAUSE OF THEIR NUMBERS! THIS IS ALL RECORDED IN ANCIENT TEXTS!
Infact Whites were such a significant chunk of the world population when they started invading ancient civilizations, that their genetic pool is TODAY found from China to India, to Central Asia, to Anatolia, to Siberia, to the Middle East and Northern Africa in THE MAJOR POPULATION CENTERS THERE TODAY! And you can look at the genetic charts and historical records TO SEE THAT FACT! And they overpopulated Europe to the point that their genes ARE FOUND ALL THROUGHOUT NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AFRICA AND AUSTRALIA TODAY!
This is a major genetic outflow from a population of people whom originated in Central Asia/South Asia and the Siberian steppes and Northern Europe affecting THE ENTIRE WORLD! So in order for that to have happened, Whites clearly had to have been a SIGNIFICANT % of the world population pre-WWI.
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Winters: " Researchers from the Max Plank(sic) Institute have "proven", that Neanderthals are native to Europe, and all populations carry Neanderthal genes except Africans."
NO, the European Neanderthals contributed little to modern Europeans.
The EurAsian ("Central Asian & West Siberian")Neanderthals seem to have contributed much more to Asians, Melanesians, and slightly less to Europeans.
Xyyman: "Amarnas..." which one?
Amarnas is a town and commune in Sidi Bel Abbès Province in northwestern Algeria. Amarna is in Egypt.
Posts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] Is the The Max Plank Institute trying to develop a new multiregional theory? Researchers from the Max Plank Institute have "proven", that Neanderthals are native to Europe, and all populations carry Neanderthal genes except Africans.
Is this research attempting to imply that whites are direct descendants of the Neanderthals, instead of anatomically modern humans (amh) from Africa? I think it is.
You must not be reading the articles of The Max Plank Institute.
The Neanderthal genome has been mapped. They say that Eurasians are 1-6 percent Neanderthal or the similar Densiova hominid. Papua New Guineans have the highest amount ( denisova admixture up to 6 percent)
THAT IS A LOW PERCENTAGE
So at that small percentage the remainder is is over 90% Anatomically modern human. Therefore no one is saying that the neanderthal is the direct ancestor of Anatomically Modern Human and therefore a multi regional theory that says Anatomically modern humans of Eurasia did not have primary ancestry from Africa would not make sense.
Sub-Saharan Africans are estimated 0.3-0.7% of Neanderthal ancestry.
Many Sub-Saharan Africans have small percentages of Eurasian ancestry under 5% (although is some regions higher)
On average lower than African Americans.
The word "multi regional" or with the hyphen "multi-regional" does not even appear on the Max Planck website
posted
Correction "miss" Lioness. Hadza, Sandewe, and some East Africans carry more "Eurasia" ancestry than Aframs . Cited many time. But you are correct on the other points.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] Is the The Max Plank Institute trying to develop a new multiregional theory? Researchers from the Max Plank Institute have "proven", that Neanderthals are native to Europe, and all populations carry Neanderthal genes except Africans.
Is this research attempting to imply that whites are direct descendants of the Neanderthals, instead of anatomically modern humans (amh) from Africa? I think it is.
You must not be reading the articles of The Max Plank Institute.
The Neanderthal genome has been mapped. They say that Eurasians are 1-6 percent Neanderthal or the similar Densiova hominid. Papua New Guineans have the highest amount ( denisova admixture up to 6 percent)
THAT IS A LOW PERCENTAGE
So at that small percentage the remainder is is over 90% Anatomically modern human. Therefore no one is saying that the neanderthal is the direct ancestor of Anatomically Modern Human and therefore a multi regional theory that says Anatomically modern humans of Eurasia did not have primary ancestry from Africa would not make sense.
Sub-Saharan Africans are estimated 0.3-0.7% of Neanderthal ancestry.
Many Sub-Saharan Africans have small percentages of Eurasian ancestry under 5% (although is some regions higher)
On average lower than African Americans.
The word "multi regional" or with the hyphen "multi-regional" does not even appear on the Max Planck website
They don't have to use the word itself. When you understand the science and theory, you'll understand what they're referring at.
"The Neanderthal genome has been mapped."
Funny part is that they claimed that Africans had no "Neanderthal intrusion". That is what they claimed "right"? Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: They don't have to use the word itself. When you understand the science and theory, you'll understand what they're referring at. ]
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: They don't have to use the word itself. When you understand the science and theory, you'll understand what they're referring at.
stop bullshitting
quote: Bolstering Multiregional Theory?
Intermixing does not surprise paleoanthropologists who have long argued on the basis of fossils that archaic humans, such as the Neandertals in Eurasia and Homo erectus in East Asia, mated with early moderns and can be counted among our ancestors—the so-called multiregional evolution theory of modern human origins. The detection of Neandertal DNA in present-day people thus comes as welcome news to these scientists. “It is important evidence for multiregional evolution,” comments Milford H. Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, the leading proponent of the theory.
posted
The ironic part is that the Neanderthal has been found in Isreal, what technically is considered Northeast Africa! However, for some magical reason the Neanderthal was never able to intrude DNA into African spicies.
quote: Skull discovery suggests location where humans first had sex with Neanderthals
An ancient skull found in a cave in northern Israel has cast light on the migration of modern humans out of Africa and the dawn of humanity’s colonisation of the world.
For most palaeontologists that might be enough for a single fossil, but the braincase has offered much more: a likely location where the first prehistoric trysts resulted in modern humans having sex with their heavy-browed Neanderthal cousins.
Discovered in a cave in western Galilee, the partial skull belonged to an individual, probably a woman, who lived and died in the region about 55,000 years ago, placing modern humans there and then for the first time ever.
Homo sapiens walked out of Africa at least 60,000 years ago, but the harsh climate in parts of Europe at the time hampered their spread across much of the continent until about 45,000 years ago.
The skull reveals that modern humans reached the Levant where the population may have given rise to those who later colonised Europe when the frozen climate abated and the territory became more habitable.
Israel Hershkovitz at Tel Aviv University said the skull, though missing its face and jaws, was an extraordinary find. Distinctly modern in its anatomy, the braincase resembles the European Cro-Magnons (robustly built early modern humans), but retains some African features too. “It’s amazing. This is the first specimen we have that connects Africa to Europe,” Hershkovitz told the Guardian.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The ironic part is that the Neanderthal has been found in Isreal, what technically is considered Northeast Africa! However, for some magical reason the Neanderthal was never able to intrude DNA into African spicies.
In your own words why are you saying Israel is in Africa?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: They don't have to use the word itself. When you understand the science and theory, you'll understand what they're referring at.
stop bullshitting
quote: Bolstering Multiregional Theory?
Intermixing does not surprise paleoanthropologists who have long argued on the basis of fossils that archaic humans, such as the Neandertals in Eurasia and Homo erectus in East Asia, mated with early moderns and can be counted among our ancestors—the so-called multiregional evolution theory of modern human origins. The detection of Neandertal DNA in present-day people thus comes as welcome news to these scientists. “It is important evidence for multiregional evolution,” comments Milford H. Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, the leading proponent of the theory.
In order to bolster the multiregional theory there would have to be a much higher degree of Neanderthal admixture found in humans.
A multiregional theory is a possible reality.
___________________________________
Neandertal Genome Study Reveals That We Have a Little Caveman in Us The sequence shows that Neandertals and modern humans interbred, and that their DNA persists in us By Kate Wong on May 6, 2010
Researchers sequencing Neandertal DNA have concluded that between 1 and 4 percent of the DNA of people today who live outside Africa came from Neandertals, the result of interbreeding between Neandertals and early modern humans. A team of scientists led by Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig pieced together the first draft of the sequence—which represents about 60 percent of the entire genome—using DNA obtained from three Neandertal bones that come from Vindija cave in Croatia and are more than 38,000 years old. The researchers detail their analysis of the sequence in the May 7 Science. The evidence that Neandertals contributed DNA to modern humans came as a shock to the investigators. “First I thought it was some kind of statistical fluke,” Pääbo remarked during a press teleconference on May 5. “We as a consortium came into this with a very, very strong bias against gene flow,” added team member David Reich of Harvard University. But when the researchers conducted additional analyses, the results all pointed to the same conclusion. Rethinking the Gene Pool The finding contrasts sharply with Pääbo's previous work. In 1997 he and his colleagues sequenced the first Neandertal mitochondrial DNA . Mitochondria are the cell’s energy-generating organelles, and they have their own DNA, which is distinct from the much longer DNA sequence that resides in the cell’s nucleus. Their analysis revealed that Neandertals had not made any contributions to modern mitochondrial DNA. Yet because mitochondrial DNA represents only a tiny fraction of an individual’s genetic makeup, the possibility remained that Neandertal nuclear DNA might tell a different story. Still, additional genetic analyses have typically led researchers to conclude that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and replaced the archaic humans it encountered as it spread out from its birthplace without mingling with them. But mingle they apparently did, according to the new study. When Pääbo’s team looked at patterns of nuclear genome variation in present-day humans, it identified 12 genome regions where non-Africans exhibited variants that were not seen in Africans and that were thus candidates for being derived from the Neandertals, who lived not in Africa but Eurasia. Comparing those regions with the same regions in the newly assembled Neandertal sequence, the researchers found 10 matches, meaning 10 of these 12 variants in non-Africans came from Neandertals. (Where the other two segments came from remains unknown.) Intriguingly, the researchers failed to detect a special affinity to Europeans—a link that might have been expected given that Neandertals seem to have persisted in Europe longer than anywhere else before disappearing around 28,000 years ago. Rather, the Neandertal sequence was equally close to sequences from present-day people from France, Papua New Guinea and China, even though no Neandertal specimens have turned up in the latter two parts of the world. By way of explanation, the investigators suggest that the interbreeding occurred in the Middle East between 45,000 and 80,000 years ago, before moderns fanned out to other parts of the Old World and split into different groups. Bolstering Multiregional Theory? Intermixing does not surprise paleoanthropologists who have long argued on the basis of fossils that archaic humans, such as the Neandertals in Eurasia and Homo erectus in East Asia, mated with early moderns and can be counted among our ancestors—the so-called multiregional evolution theory of modern human origins. The detection of Neandertal DNA in present-day people thus comes as welcome news to these scientists. “It is important evidence for multiregional evolution,” comments Milford H. Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, the leading proponent of the theory. The new finding shows that “gene flow across taxonomic boundaries happens,” observes geneticist Michael F. Hammer of the University of Arizona. Hammer is among the minority of geneticists who have espoused the idea of gene flow between archaic and modern populations. His own studies of the DNA of people living today have uncovered, for example, a stretch of DNA that seems to have come from encounters between moderns and H. erectus. Some experts suspect that the estimate for the amount of Neandertal DNA people carry today could rise with further studies—if a Neandertal from the Middle East were sequenced, for instance. In addition, says paleoanthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, the current study might be obscuring a contribution of Neandertal genes to the African gene pool, because the team specifically looked to explain genetic diversity in non-Africans compared with Africans. He and his colleagues are currently working on a way to assess that possibility. Many researchers concur that the results disprove the strict Out of Africa replacement model of modern human origins. In a prepared statement Out of Africa theorist Christopher B. Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London said “although I have never ruled out the possibility of interbreeding, I have considered this to have been small and insignificant in the bigger picture of our evolution— for example, the results of isolated interbreeding events could easily have been lost in the intervening millennia. Now, the Neanderthal genome strongly suggests those genes were not lost, and that many of us outside of Africa have some Neanderthal inheritance.” But Stringer maintains that the origin of our species is mostly an Out of Africa story. Population geneticist Laurent Excoffier of the University of Bern in Switzerland agrees that Out of Africa is still the most plausible model of modern human origins, noting that the alleged admixture did not continue as moderns moved into Europe. “In all scenarios of speciation, there is a time during which two diverging species remain interfertile,” he explains. Other Forebears as Well? Pääbo, for his part, says that now that his team has shown that early modern humans interbred with one archaic group, he thinks other archaic humans might have passed along genes to us through interbreeding. Whether such contributions might have been beneficial remains unknown, however, although the Neandertal DNA in non-Africans does not seem to encode anything particularly important from a functional standpoint. In addition to illuminating how Neandertals and moderns interacted, the Neandertal genome is helping researchers to figure out which parts of the modern human genome separate us from all other creatures. “Many traits that distinguish humans from chimps are believed to have evolved more recently than the human–Neanderthal split,” observes biostatistician Katherine S. Pollard of the Gladstone Institutes at the University of California, San Francisco. “A Neanderthal genome is a very important step towards determining the genetic basis for these characteristics that define the modern human species.” Thus far, Pääbo’s group has identified a number of modern human genome regions containing sequence variation that is not seen in Neandertals and that may have helped modern humans adapt. Some of these regions play a role in cognitive development, sperm movement and the physiology of the skin. But exactly how these slight changes to the modern human sequence affected the functioning of these genome regions remains to be determined. “A complete understanding of this is really a stepwise process,” team member Richard E. Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz, remarked at the press teleconference. “What we have done here is take a really important step forward. We can say exactly what changes happened recently with very high resolution.” Says Pääbo: “This is just the beginning of the exploration of human uniqueness that is now possible.” _____________________________
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The ironic part is that the Neanderthal has been found in Isreal, what technically is considered Northeast Africa! However, for some magical reason the Neanderthal was never able to intrude DNA into African spicies.
In your own words why are you saying Israel is in Africa?
posted
"Ok that is a good article although six years old."
lol As if it makes the argument less true, or disputable? SMH
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The ironic part is that the Neanderthal has been found in Isreal, what technically is considered Northeast Africa! However, for some magical reason the Neanderthal was never able to intrude DNA into African spicies.
In your own words why are you saying Israel is in Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Interesting paper, although it reads a bit as a joke.
The Neanderthal specimin was found in Israel, but somehow it couldn't interact with African species. Was the Neanderthal limited? I wonder how come?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Technically Israel is in Africa.
:
So if this is a map of part of Africa your comment at top doesn't make sense
You are a joke too, you take different posts, then try to make an argument, however you still fail. And the comment still makes sense, it's that you're dense. In the second video there is a man taking about the tectonics plates and literally "showing" that Israel is part of Africa. But little old you the hater, the euronut couldn't contain yourself again and let go of this fact. So again you try to alter and derail it. LOL
You are giving me a reference to a bible based Black Hebrew Israelite video rather than science so you will have to come with better references
People call Europe and Asia two continents yet they are on the same tectonic plate
There's a fault line that places Israel on the African plate. Yet there is no physical boundary separating Israel from the Arabian plate although the Dead Sea.
If continents were named according to tectonic plates you could call Israel an African country and India a continent onto itself not a part of Asia.
So let's say Israel is an African country.
It is assumed that because there is a Neanderthal site there that humans interbred with Neanderthals there and also did more interbreeding with Neanderthal humans in Europe.
Nevertheless modern Eurasians (excluding denisova) are estimated to have low percentages of neanderthal ancestry 1-4%.
In Africa Yoruba people in West Africa and other parts of Africa were found to have some less than 1% Neanderthal ancestry but scientists are not sure why.
Kuhlwilm and colleagues looked at a different scenario: What if the Neandertal looks more like living Africans because it received some gene flow from early modern humans, who had originated in Africa?
Their further comparisons showed that this hypothesis of modern human introgression does not explain the overall similarity of Neandertal and African genomes. Denisovans do indeed have a ghost population in their ancestry.
But still, there is a residual of the Altai Neandertal genome that is much more similar to Africans, even in comparison to other Neandertal individuals. This aspect of the comparisons pointed to more recent genetic exchanges from Africa into the Altai Neandertal’s population:
We find that windows of the Denisovan genome with high divergence to Africans also have a high divergence to the Altai Neanderthal, whereas windows in the Altai Neanderthal genome with high divergence to Africans do not tend to have a high divergence to the Denisovan (Fig. 1a), consistent with gene flow from a deeply diverged hominin into the Denisovan ancestors. On the other hand, we find that windows of the Altai Neanderthal genome with low divergence to Africans have higher divergence to the Denisovan than Denisovan windows with low divergence to Africans (Fig. 1a). These windows in the Altai Neanderthal genome have higher heterozygosity than in the Denisovan genome (Fig. 1b), and 40.7% of their heterozygous sites share a derived allele with Africans, whereas 24.2% do so in the Denisovan. These observations raise the possibility of gene flow from modern humans into Neanderthals.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: "Ok that is a good article although six years old."
lol As if it makes the argument less true, or disputable? SMH
the article says some scientist believe in the multiregional theory.
The multiregional theory is possible, do you have a problem with it?
Yes, I have a problem with it, isn't that clear by now. And I have explained why! We know you have a problem with modern humans origin in Africa.
"You are giving me a reference to a bible based Black Hebrew Israelite video rather than science so you will have to come with better references "
Retarded one, this is not about the religion lecture, it is about the regional plateau lecture, which the man is showing. He is litterly standing there showing it.
"People call Europe and Asia two continents yet they are on the same tectonic plate"
What has this to do with anything? Turkey is considered part of Asia and part of Europe.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Nevertheless modern Eurasians (excluding denisova) are estimated to have low percentages of neanderthal ancestry 1-4%."
LOL
"there is a Neanderthal site there that humans interbred with Neanderthals there and also did more interbreeding with Neanderthal humans in Europe."
The Neaderthal originated from Africa?LOL
"In Africa Yoruba people in West Africa and other parts of Africa were found to have some less than 1% Neanderthal ancestry but scientists are not sure why."
LOL smh. At first Africans were found to have no Neaderthal DNA. What happened?
quote: Some of the human X chromosome originates from Neanderthals and is found exclusively in people outside Africa, according to an international team of researchers led by Damian Labuda of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Montreal and the CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center. The research was published in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution.
Genome sequences harvested from Neanderthal bones have previously confirmed that the two groups mated, and that about 2% of the genomes of people who descend from Europeans, Asians and other non-Africans is Neanderthal 3, 4. The Neanderthal contributions are peppered across the genome, and different people have different Neanderthal genes.
quote: All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm
The ancestors of Neanderthals left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago. They evolved over the millennia mostly in what are now France, Spain, Germany and Russia. They went extinct, or were simply absorbed into the modern human population, about 30,000 years ago.
[...]
This work goes back to nearly a decade ago, when Labuda and his colleagues identified a piece of DNA, called a haplotype, in the human X chromosome that seemed different. They questioned its origins.
Fast forward to 2010, when the Neanderthal genome was sequenced. The researchers could then compare the haplotype to the Neanderthal genome as well as to the DNA of existing humans. The scientists found that the sequence was present in people across all continents, except for sub-Saharan Africa, and including Australia.
posted
Neanderthal-type species once roamed Africa, DNA shows
The human family tree just got another — mysterious — branch, an African “sister species” to the heavy-browed Neanderthals that once roamed Europe.
While no fossilized bones have been found from these enigmatic people, they did leave a calling card in present-day Africans: snippets of foreign DNA.
There’s only one way that genetic material could have made it into modern human populations.
“Geneticists like euphemisms, but we’re talking about sex,” said Joshua Akey of the University of Washington in Seattle, whose lab identified the mystery DNA in three groups of modern Africans.
These genetic leftovers do not resemble DNA from any modern-day humans. The foreign DNA also does not resemble Neanderthal DNA, which shows up in the DNA of some modern-day Europeans, Akey said. That means the newly identified DNA came from an unknown group.
“We’re calling this a Neanderthal sibling species in Africa,” Akey said. He added that the interbreeding probably occurred 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after some modern humans had walked out of Africa to colonize Asia and Europe, and around the same time Neanderthals were waning in Europe.
The find offers more evidence that for thousands of years, modern-looking humans shared the Earth with evolutionary cousins that later died out. And whenever the groups met, whether in Africa or Europe, they did what came naturally — they bred. In fact, hominid hanky-panky seems to have occurred wherever humans met others who looked kind of like them — a controversial idea until recently.
In 2010, researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany announced finding Neanderthal DNA in the genomes of modern Europeans.
Barrel-chested people whose thick double brows, broad noses and flat faces set them apart from modern humans, Neanderthals disappeared about 25,000 or 30,000 years ago.
Another mysterious group of extinct people recently identified from a 30,000-year-old finger bone in Siberia — known as the Denisovans — also left some of their DNA in modern-day Pacific Islanders.
And while modern humans and the newly found “archaic” Africans might be classified as distinct species, they produced viable offspring. Likewise, donkeys and horses, lions and tigers.
One skull found in Nigeria with puzzling “primitive” features may represent a survivor of these mystery people — or a hybrid with anatomically modern humans — said Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, who was not involved in the new work.
“You can argue, are these really different species?” Stringer said.
Stringer added that he was not surprised to see genetic evidence for another humanlike group in Africa that interbred with anatomically modern people, who are thought to have emerged in Africa about 200,000 years ago.
Still, without a definitive fossil, it’s impossible to say what these people looked like. But one thing is clear: This enigmatic group left its DNA all across Africa. The researchers found it in the forest-dwelling pygmies of central Africa and in two groups of hunter-gatherers on the other side of the continent — the Hadza and Sandawe people of Tanzania.
Starting a decade ago, a team led by Sarah Tishkoff and Joseph Lachance of the University of Pennsylvania drew blood from five individuals in each of the three groups. Using the latest genetic technology, Tishkoff spent $150,000 to read, or sequence, the DNA of these 15 people. The research was reported Wednesday in the journal Cell.
In addition to finding evidence of the now-extinct humans, the team discovered a huge range of genetic diversity between the three groups. The human genome contains about 3 billion letters, or base pairs, of DNA. Before this study, scientists had found that about 40 million of these letters vary across human populations.
But in the 15 Africans, Tishkoff and Lachance found 3 million more genetic variants — a huge treasure trove of human diversity. Among this stunning variety, Tishkoff says they have pinpointed some of the genes responsible for the short stature of the pygmies, who average less than 5 feet in height. She also found that immune system genes and genes for taste and smell varied wildly between the three groups — confirming Africa as the seat of the widest range of human diversity.
The oldest modern human skull, found in Ethiopia, dates to 195,000 years ago. For more than 150,000 years, then, humans shared the planet with cousin species.
Despite all the amorous advances, however, only one group survived: us.
Akey said: “As we were conquering the world, we also conquered similar human populations that were dying out.”
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: 'We’re calling this a Neanderthal sibling species in Africa,”
...um..will Albino degeneracy ever end ?
It must really hurt to be them...trying so hard to be special...
Yep, ... dissociation at the core, or should I say to the core.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Also the belief that Africans do NOT carry Neaderthal ancestry was held 5-10years ago. That has changed since then based upon recent papers(2016).
I'd like a snippet of this 2016 paper or was it quoted already.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic