posted
Chinese are not African. They are descendants of the Asian Homo erectus. But, of course, the Asian Homo erectus comes from Africa too. The Neanderthals were not African, but even them were the descendants of the European and Middle Eastern Archaic Homo sapiens respectively, who were also descendants of the African Homo erectus.
So what do you mean by “person”, a modern human or any member of the human species?
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dtango: Chinese are not African. They are descendants of the Asian Homo erectus. But, of course, the Asian Homo erectus comes from Africa too. The Neanderthals were not African, but even them were the descendants of the European and Middle Eastern Archaic Homo sapiens respectively, who were also descendants of the African Homo erectus.
So what do you mean by “person”, a modern human or any member of the human species?
From where did these Neanderthals come?
And what is the genome of Chinese?
Hence, humans descent from the Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to history, archeology and genetics DNA)humanity was born in east Africa therefore every body on earth is African. you have black, brown, yellow and pale African with different phenotype and morphology. The different looking people on earth aka the so call race is due to isolated selective inbreeding of African people who migrated in different area of the world.
Somebody with 0% African is not human, that person is maybe an extraterrestrial from Mars( I am Joking). I think selfish European and Asian Monarchs and High Priests burned their Ancient libraries and created racism for greed, exploitation and egotistical reasons.
Black people with different phenotype.
African mother and father of humanity.
Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: If you mean 0% in terms of autosomal DNA,the answer is yes.
what do you think is the minimum amount time that the DNA of a population such as Africans, when migrating out of one region to another that their DNA becomes uniquely mutated to the new region such that it can be distinguished form it's eariier form?
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: According to history, archeology and genetics DNA)humanity was born in east Africa therefore every body on earth is African.
Correct, but that is not the point! Humanity was born in Eastern Africa but the white race, people group, phenotype, or whatever you prefer to call it, was born in South Africa and not in Scandinavia. In other words, races had already been established at the stage of Homo erectus. At all times there were various races of humans living at different places simultaneously. The Near Eastern Neanderthals were different than the European ones and there were the Early modern Homo sapiens of the Near East and the Denisovans and Siberian Neanderthals of the Far East.
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: how do you know this ?
I've never heard this before
If you read the Max Plank reports you’ll realize that no human race evolved from another human race. So where did the white people come from if they did not evolve out of black people? Africa is the only answer!
Moreover, those who left Africa 70kya possessed certain technology which we find in South African sites, such as Sibudu Cave, Howiesons Poort Shelter, and Klasies River Mouth below layers of older technologies. That means that the guys of the modern technologies were ejected from the land otherwise those who followed would have learned to produce tools of the more modern technology as it happened in Europe where Neanderthals imitated the technology of the Cro Magnon.
They were using projectile weapons as far back as 71kya. These they used to defeat and exterminate the Neanderthals.
The Out Of Africa theory, the theory that recognizes as modern humans only those who left South Africa, is an extremely racist theory because according to this idiotic theory those who remained in Africa were not regarded modern humans!! Its main proponent, Chris Stringer, is “rethinking” it but since OOA suits the theological preaching about God’s creating humans only once in one place, it is still the generally acceptable theory.
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: how do you know this ?
I've never heard this before
If you read the Max Plank reports you’ll realize that no human race evolved from another human race. So where did the white people come from if they did not evolve out of black people? Africa is the only answer!
Moreover, those who left Africa 70kya possessed certain technology which we find in South African sites, such as Sibudu Cave, Howiesons Poort Shelter, and Klasies River Mouth below layers of older technologies. That means that the guys of the modern technologies were ejected from the land otherwise those who followed would have learned to produce tools of the more modern technology as it happened in Europe where Neanderthals imitated the technology of the Cro Magnon.
They were using projectile weapons as far back as 71kya. These they used to defeat and exterminate the Neanderthals.
The Out Of Africa theory, the theory that recognizes as modern humans only those who left South Africa, is an extremely racist theory because according to this idiotic theory those who remained in Africa were not regarded modern humans!! Its main proponent, Chris Stringer, is “rethinking” it but since OOA suits the theological preaching about God’s creating humans only once in one place, it is still the generally acceptable theory.
"Only those who left South Africa"?
Are you familiar with the human-genome?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: According to history, archeology and genetics DNA)humanity was born in east Africa therefore every body on earth is African.
Correct, but that is not the point! Humanity was born in Eastern Africa but the white race, people group, phenotype, or whatever you prefer to call it, was born in South Africa and not in Scandinavia. In other words, races had already been established at the stage of Homo erectus. At all times there were various races of humans living at different places simultaneously. The Near Eastern Neanderthals were different than the European ones and there were the Early modern Homo sapiens of the Near East and the Denisovans and Siberian Neanderthals of the Far East.
From where did you get this theory?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: "Only those who left South Africa"?
Are you familiar with the human-genome?
Do not ask me, ask Stringer; it is his theory.
quote: From where did you get this theory?
That is not a theory, that is fact. Modern people evolved in Africa, Europe and Asia.
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Multi-Regional theory that modern man evolved in different Regions of the world is not supported by genetics or even microbiology.Out Of Africa is supported by genetics and microbiology.The bacteria Heliocobacter Pylori which is part of our stomach flora has been traced back to Africa based on it's own phylogeny.
Posts: 121 | From: Guyana | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: Multi-Regional theory that modern man evolved in different Regions of the world is not supported by genetics or even microbiology.Out Of Africa is supported by genetics and microbiology.The bacteria Heliocobacter Pylori which is part of our stomach flora has been traced back to Africa based on it's own phylogeny.
yes and the research was done by the Max Plank Institute
Out of Africa - Bacteria, as well Homo sapiens and Helicobacter pylori jointly spread across the globe
February 14, 2007
When man made his way out of Africa some 60,000 years ago to populate the world, he was not alone: He was accompanied by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, which causes gastritis in many people today. Together, man and the bacterium spread throughout the entire world. This is the conclusion reached by an international team of scientists led by Mark Achtman from the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin, Germany. The researchers also discovered that differences developed in the genetic makeup of the bacteria populations, just as it did in that of the various peoples of the world. This has also given scientists new insight into the paths taken by man as he journeyed across the Earth (Nature online, February 7, 2007).
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: Multi-Regional theory that modern man evolved in different Regions of the world is not supported by genetics or even microbiology.Out Of Africa is supported by genetics and microbiology.The bacteria Heliocobacter Pylori which is part of our stomach flora has been traced back to Africa based on it's own phylogeny.
When scientists want to support religion become theologians!! According to the report More than half of all human beings are infected with Helicobacter pylori , what about the other half? The Native Australians are free of the bacterium, are they not Homo sapiens?
Those who left Africa 70kya started from South Africa, not East Africa (we know the exact locations because their tools, utensils and weapons were technologically advanced and were the only advanced ones at the time). East Africa is the cradle of humanity but not of modern humanity. The entire Africa, Europe and Asia produced modern humans.
OOA theory is ridiculous and extremely racist. Its proponent, as I already said, is “rethinking it”. The so-called Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss) moved from South Africa to Near East where they interbred with Neanderthals and acquired a part of Neanderthal DNA in their genome. Today’s Africans do not have Neanderthal DNA in their genome because they did not leave Africa along with the Hss. According to the OOA theory today’s Africans should not be considered modern humans!!
Neanderthals and Denisovans were just two more human races because Hss interbred with them and had fertile offspring, us!
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
Those who left Africa 70kya started from South Africa, not East Africa (we know the exact locations because their tools, utensils and weapons were technologically advanced and were the only advanced ones at the time)....
Humanity was born in Eastern Africa but the white race, people group, phenotype, or whatever you prefer to call it, was born in South Africa
do you have any source quotes on this? How would anybody know their skin color at that time?
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: do you have any source quotes on this? How would anybody know their skin color at that time?
The so-called Hss (Homo sapiens sapiens) are known by their technology which first appeared in South Africa (tools, mattresses, arrows) and it ended up Europe. There is evidence that they were ejected from Africa because layers containing their technology are below layers of older, non-modern technology, meaning that they did not stay to teach the people of the older technology as it happened in Europe with Neanderthals. They acquired Neanderthal DNA in the Near East and arrived in Europe with their modern technology, their Neanderthals’ DNA in their genome and their white skin, blue eyes, blonde hair and thin noses. Black Africans had neither modern technology, nor Neanderthal DNA in their genome. They did not leave Africa!
Skin color has nothing to do with geographical location. The natives in Patagonia were dark skinned and so remained. The Inuit were also dark skinned and so remain up to this date. The Hss started from South Africa not from some location close to equator.
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: Multi-Regional theory that modern man evolved in different Regions of the world is not supported by genetics or even microbiology.Out Of Africa is supported by genetics and microbiology.The bacteria Heliocobacter Pylori which is part of our stomach flora has been traced back to Africa based on it's own phylogeny.
When scientists want to support religion become theologians!! According to the report More than half of all human beings are infected with , what about the other half? The Native Australians are free of the bacterium, are they not Homo sapiens?
Those who left Africa 70kya started from South Africa, not East Africa (we know the exact locations because their tools, utensils and weapons were technologically advanced and were the only advanced ones at the time). East Africa is the cradle of humanity but not of modern humanity. The entire Africa, Europe and Asia produced modern humans.
OOA theory is ridiculous and extremely racist. Its proponent, as I already said, is “rethinking it”. The so-called Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss) moved from South Africa to Near East where they interbred with Neanderthals and acquired a part of Neanderthal DNA in their genome. Today’s Africans do not have Neanderthal DNA in their genome because they did not leave Africa along with the Hss. According to the OOA theory today’s Africans should not be considered modern humans!!
Neanderthals and Denisovans were just two more human races because Hss interbred with them and had fertile offspring, us!
It could be that the other half has developed certain recessive alleles. But how do you explain that on half of the human population who do carry the Helicobacter pylori?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: do you have any source quotes on this? How would anybody know their skin color at that time?
The so-called Hss (Homo sapiens sapiens) are known by their technology which first appeared in South Africa (tools, mattresses, arrows) and it ended up Europe. There is evidence that they were ejected from Africa because layers containing their technology are below layers of older, non-modern technology, meaning that they did not stay to teach the people of the older technology as it happened in Europe with Neanderthals.
They acquired Neanderthal DNA in the Near East and arrived in Europe with their modern technology, their Neanderthals’ DNA in their genome and their white skin, blue eyes, blonde hair and thin noses. Black Africans had neither modern technology, nor Neanderthal DNA in their genome. They did not leave Africa!
Skin color has nothing to do with geographical location. The natives in Patagonia were dark skinned and so remained. The Inuit were also dark skinned and so remain up to this date. The Hss started from South Africa not from some location close to equator.
But, all these traits out speak of can be found within Africans. In the genepool of Africans, you'll find these alleles as fixed and unfixed. These alleles are also within Europeans ( whites ) as fixed.
Blue-eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor
quote: University of Copenhagen
Summary: New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. Scientists have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.
Also many of the tools can be found within African assemblages. It was part of (black) Africans who left Africa to populate the world. While others remained within Africa.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: Stringer's theory correlates with the human genome.
Stringer’s theory was proposed at a time that nuclear DNA had not yet been sequenced and was based on the theological theory of mitochondrial mother Eve. The racist Mr. Stringer believed that only the South African Hss were human and that the rest population in Africa, Europe and Asia, at that time, were primitive subhuman creatures. On learning that we are hybrids Hss/Neanderthal he set to “rethink” his childish theory. Here are his words:
quote:Twenty years ago, I would have argued that our species evolved in one place, maybe in East Africa or South Africa. There was a period of time in just one place where a small population of humans became modern, physically and behaviourally. Isolated and perhaps stressed by climate change, this drove a rapid and punctuational origin for our species. Now I don’t think it was that simple, either within or outside of Africa
quote: On what remains/ fossils is this "fact" based?
Neanderthals were modern humans and so were the Early modern Homo sapiens from Skhul and Qafzeh in Israel.
quote:It could be that the other half has developed certain recessive alleles. But how do you explain that on half of the human population who do carry the Helicobacter pylori?
There is no doubt that the Hss left Near East to populate Europe Asia and the Americas (Native Australians were already there since 55k to 60kya). Multiregional theory says no differently. The point is that Hss interbred with the people they found in Asia and Europe. Moreover, we know that they all have ties with the Near East because they all share the same framework in their legends.
quote:But, all these traits out speak of can be found within Africans. In the genepool of Africans, you'll find these alleles as fixed and unfixed. These alleles are also within Europeans ( whites ) as fixed.
Alleles or no alleles, if you provide your DNA they can tell whether you are African or Eurasian.
quote:New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. Scientists have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.
In that case we only have to wait until they find the mutation responsible for the blonde hair, the straight hair, the thin nose, and the pale skin, to create the white race all over again. Ask a scientist to tell you why European Neanderthals had big broad noses and he will tell you that they served to warm the inhaled chilly air. Ask why the Scandinavians have thin noses and he will provide the same explanation. When a scientific theory contradicts common sense, I trust common sense.
quote:Also many of the tools can be found within African assemblages. It was part of (black) Africans who left Africa to populate the world. While others remained within Africa.
I am sorry but Africans, other than the South African ones, did not produce the blades of the Hss and you may not talk about black Africans who left Africa and others who remained behind in Africa because, according to the theory you prefer, only those who left Africa were modern humans.
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Stringer’s theory was proposed at a time that nuclear DNA had not yet been sequenced and was based on the theological theory of mitochondrial mother Eve. The racist Mr. Stringer believed that only the South African Hss were human and that the rest population in Africa, Europe and Asia, at that time, were primitive subhuman creatures. On learning that we are hybrids Hss/Neanderthal he set to “rethink” his childish theory. Here are his words:
To understand this part its best to look up the actual meaning of the Hss.
quote:
Ho·mo sa·pi·ens [hoh-moh sey-pee-uhnz] Show IPA noun 1. ( italics ) the species of bipedal primates to which modern humans belong, characterized by a brain capacity averaging 1400 cc (85 cubic in.) and by dependence upon language and the creation and utilization of complex tools. 2. humankind. Origin: 1795–1805; < Neo-Latin: rational man
Homo sapiens (ˈsæpɪˌɛnz)
— n See also man the specific name of modern man; the only extant species of the genus Homo. This species also includes extinct types of primitive man such as Cro-Magnon man
Homo sapiens Line breaks: Homo sa¦pi|ens Pronunciation: /ˌhəʊməʊ ˈsapɪɛnz , ˌhɒməʊ ˈsapɪɛnz/ NOUN
1The primate species to which modern humans belong; humans regarded as a species. See also Homo.
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
It clearly belongs to our species Homo sapiens, but it defies attribution to a specific modern human group.
This discovery bridges the gap between our earlier ancestors, Homo erectus, and modern humans, Homo sapiens.
The scientists, DNA experts from Glagow University, have also discovered where the mysterious creature should go in the fossil record and the evolutionary chart of man and how it gave rise to modern humans, or Homo sapiens.
A member of the Homo Sapiens species; a human being: a small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made the footprints
We Homo sapiens are descended from bipedal primates - usually called hominids - that first appeared in Africa some 5 million years ago.
Thanks for that link.
quote: You could argue that they're an extreme variant of Homo sapiens, but a very different 'race' from anyone alive today, or, as I prefer to argue, they're a separate species, with a separate evolutionary history.
The question then becomes who and what is ancestral to the Hss?
Thus far the root of the human genome says it's in Africa. Since this genome is by far the largest part of our genetic make up. The Hss group that moved out of Africa interbred with the Neanderthals, and later on with Denisovans. Meaning Denisovans were still around during the OOA.
Or its due to the multiple Hss OOA streams later intermixing Denisovans admixture with Neanderthals Hss. Since the Neanderthals not Denisovans distribution hasn't been spread equally (Europe-Asia).
(1-4%) contribution to the gene pools
I interpret this as multiple intrusions/ OOA of Hss coming into Asia and Europe, bringing in a variety of this gene distribution (in later arrivals).
Chris states:
quote:We don't know the circumstances of the interbreeding—we don't know if these were groups that came together peacefully, or maybe some modern humans were lacking mates and decided to capture some from a neighboring group. It can't have been that common a behavior, or there would be a lot more DNA from these archaic people.
[...]
I interpret this a Hss evolving faster than other "species", And this is perhaps also in the ancestral loop. Where we split off from the Neanderthals, Denisovans and perhaps other "species" that haven't had DNA extraction and sequence yet. (in and out of Africa)
Chris states:
quote: We can see the focus, the center of evolution, for modern humans in Africa apparently moving around from one place to another, driven by climate changes. 110,000 years ago the Sahara was not desert, it was well-watered, with extensive lakes and rivers.
Which explains why early fossils from this region are lacking. Until recently.
As Chris states:
quote: And we see evidence of human occupation in the form of stone tools right across the region. At other times those populations completely vanished, and we pick up the evidence of evolving modern humans in East Africa, or down in the south instead. And we have to remember that there are large parts of Africa where we have stone tools, but no fossil record to show us who was making those tools.
We've got no ancient human fossils from central Africa or West Africa, none at all. So we have to bear in mind that our picture is still limited in terms of the sites that have been excavated and the information we've got from them.
Again shows why early Hss assemblage distribution is found in East and South Africa.
They haven't found any remains in Central and West Africa as of yet, due to the large field coverage. So this picture is not clear.
Then Chris goes:
quote: So for me, the exact processes involved in our African origin are still unclear. We don't know exactly when it happened, we don't know exactly where it happened. We have modern human fossils from Ethiopia at 160,000 years at Herto and 195,000 years from Omo Kibish. These do look physically like a more robust version of people today, but I think we're also learning that alongside those modern-looking people were surviving forms of more archaic humans, at sites like Omo Kibish, Ngaloba, Singa and Eyasi.
Perhaps these any of these or all are ancestral to the Hss? Who died out earlier, just like the Neanderthals and Denisovans died out. But leaving a large genetic stem on the Hss, or were perhaps the proto-Hss?
Chris states:
quote: In Africa itself, archaic humans could have lingered in parts of the continent as well. From some recent genetic analyses, there is evidence of an input of archaic DNA into some modern African populations as recently as 35,000 years ago. So even in Africa, the process was more complicated than we thought.
A00
To test the robustness of the backbone and the root of current Y chromosome phylogeny, we searched for SNPs that might be informative in this respect. To this aim, a resequencing analysis of a 205.9 kb MSY portion (183.5 kb in the X-degenerate and 22.4 kb in the X-transposed region) was performed for each of seven chromosomes that are representative of clade A (four chromosomes belonging to haplogroups A1a, A1b, A2, and A3), clade B, and clade CT (two chromosomes belonging to haplogroups C and R) (Table S1 available online).
--Fulvio Cruciani,
A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa
quote: Some of the most fascinating ongoing research topics in the next year or two will be homing in on the DNA that some of us have acquired from Neanderthals, that some people have acquired from the Denisovans, and that some African people have acquired, perhaps even from Homo heidelbergensis.
Thus far I know; Homo Heidelbergensis. is the oldest of the bunch.
quote: For example there is evidence both from fossils and recent DNA that even Africa had an overlap of modern and archaic humans, with the possibility in a continent so large that there were other descendants of heidelbergensis living there alongside Homo sapiens.
[...]
We knew heidelbergensis had gone two ways, to modern humans and the Neanderthals.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is no doubt that the Hss left Near East to populate Europe Asia and the Americas (Native Australians were already there since 55k to 60kya). Multiregional theory says no differently. The point is that Hss interbred with the people they found in Asia and Europe. Moreover, we know that they all have ties with the Near East because they all share the same framework in their legends.
Many of basal clades are within Africa. And many dispersals from Africa into the Middle East have taken place (via Yemen). These clades progressed from there, as mankind moved on into other regions up North (Crescent) and into Asia.
So what did you mean by half this and half that?
quote:
According to the report More than half of all human beings are infected with Helicobacter pylori , what about the other half? The Native Australians are free of the bacterium, are they not Homo sapiens?
I remember Christopher Stringer saying:
quote: The Denisovans are only known from their DNA in Siberia. Down in New Guinea and Australia, there is Denisovan DNA in living people.
The best way to explain this at the moment is that modern humans were dispersing through southern Asia towards Australia and New Guinea, and Denisovans must also have been living in that region.
[...]
genetic data suggest that the modern humans who came out of Africa about 60,000 years ago probably interbred with Neanderthals, first of all, and then some of them later on interbred with another group of people called the Denisovans, over in south eastern Asia.
Meyer said:
quote: With the new resolution, the researchers estimate the age of the bone to 74,000 to 82,000 years ago. But that is a wide window, and previous archaeological estimates for the bone are a bit younger, ranging from 30,000 to 50,000 years old.
[...]
Taking this technique to specimens from Africa is also likely to yield some exciting results, Hawks says. Africa, with its rich human evolutionary history, holds the greatest genetic diversity. The genomes of contemporary pygmy and hunter–gatherer tribes in Africa, for example, have roughly as many differences as do those of European modern humans and Neandertals. So "any ancient specimen that we find in Africa might be as different from us as Neandertals," Hawks says. "Anything we find from the right place might be another Denisovan."
quote:Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe,"
quote: For many of the individuals for which we have obtained DNA, we also collected phenotype data for traits likely to play a role in adaptation, some of which demonstrate a complex pattern of inheritance and are likely influenced by multiple loci and environmental factors. In addition to case/control analyses of variation at candidate genes, we are using whole-genome association studies to identify novel genes that are associated with these traits. Together with collaborators, we are also developing methods for mapping complex traits (including disease) in highly structured African populations.
quote: Alleles or no alleles, if you provide your DNA they can tell whether you are African or Eurasian.
See my post prior to this one.
"Whether you are African or Eurasian". It's not as simple as that. Considering the vast majority of the gene flown within mankind is rooted within Africa. only a small portion is Neanderthal and even lesser is Denisovan.
Btw, alleles are at the root of DNA.
quote:
This branching pattern, along with the geographical distribution of the major clades A, B, and CT, has been interpreted as supporting an African origin for anatomically modern humans,10 with Khoisan from south Africa and Ethiopians from east Africa sharing the deepest lineages of the phylogeny.15 and 16
[...]
The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).
[...]
How does the present MSY tree compare with the backbone of the recently published “reference” MSY phylogeny?13 The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13 These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).
quote: In that case we only have to wait until they find the mutation responsible for the blonde hair, the straight hair, the thin nose, and the pale skin, to create the white race all over again. Ask a scientist to tell you why European Neanderthals had big broad noses and he will tell you that they served to warm the inhaled chilly air. Ask why the Scandinavians have thin noses and he will provide the same explanation. When a scientific theory contradicts common sense, I trust common sense
Many of these studies already exist.
Btw, narrow noses are within the African context as well. Including bleu eyes etc....
Lalueza-Fox states:
quote: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
quote:The two genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 were recently identified as major determinants of pigmentation in humans and in other vertebrates. The allele p.A111T in the former gene and the allele p.L374F in the latter gene are both nearly fixed in light-skinned Europeans, and can therefore be considered ancestry informative marker (AIMs). AIMs are becoming useful for forensic identification of the phenotype from a DNA profile sampled, for example, from a crime scene. Here, we generate new allelic data for these two genes from samples of Chinese, Uygurs, Ghanaians, South African Xhosa, South African Europeans, and Sri Lankans (Tamils and Sinhalese). Our data confirm the earlier results and furthermore demonstrate that the SLC45A2 allele is a more specific AIM than the SLC24A5 allele because the former clearly distinguishes the Sri Lankans from the Europeans.
Authors --Soejima M, Koda Y, Population differences of two coding SNPs in pigmentation-related genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.
quote: I am sorry but Africans, other than the South African ones, did not produce the blades of the Hss and you may not talk about black Africans who left Africa and others who remained behind in Africa because, according to the theory you prefer, only those who left Africa were modern humans.
I recall,
Chris states:
quote:
And we see evidence of human occupation in the form of stone tools right across the region. At other times those populations completely vanished, and we pick up the evidence of evolving modern humans in East Africa, or down in the south instead. And we have to remember that there are large parts of Africa where we have stone tools, but no fossil record to show us who was making those tools.
We've got no ancient human fossils from central Africa or West Africa, none at all. So we have to bear in mind that our picture is still limited in terms of the sites that have been excavated and the information we've got from them.
[...]
We end up with quite a complex story, with even some of this ancient DNA coming back into modern humans within Africa. So our evolutionary story is mostly, but not absolutely, a Recent African Origin.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237-581 kya). Remarkably, this exceeds current estimates of the mtDNA TMRCA, as well as those of the age of the oldest anatomically modern human fossils.
quote:Originally posted by dtango: Black Africans had neither modern technology, nor Neanderthal DNA in their genome. They did not leave Africa!.
Example,
Prehistoric Period
The Lebombo Bone
quote: The first ever computing devises used are believed to be found around 35,000 BC.
Archeologists while excavating within the Border Cave in the Lebombo Mountains of Swaziland, discovered and important artifact. It was a small piece of the fibula bone, known as the Lebombo bone, you can guess where the name of the bone came from. It was named after the Lebombo Mountains.
This piece of fibula bone consisted of 29 distinct notches that were deliberately carved into a baboon’s fibula bone. The Lebombo bone is the oldest known mathematical artifact ever discovered.
There are no clear indications that they were used for computing at that period. It could be assumed that they may have been used in some sort of counting or to keep track of calendar. There are clear indications as the Lebombo bone resembles to the calendar sticks still used by Bushmen in Namibia.
Dirk Huylebrouck, the Mathematical Tourist columnist in the Mathematical Intelligencer, tells us about the remarkable Ishango bone, a 22,000 year old arithmetical exercise!
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: To understand this part its best to look up the actual meaning of the Hss. Ho•mo sa•pi•ens [hoh-moh sey-pee-uhnz] Show IPA Noun…
You are certainly a very good researcher but if I was to study all the material you supplied I would end up a biologist and that it is not the field I am interested in. First of all, we are not discussing Homo sapiens as a species but only that group of people that came to be known as Homo sapiens sapiens, in other words, the “South Africans” of 70kya. Who were they?
Max Planck Institute is the one that sequenced Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA and it is their reports I am following. I need not be an expert to understand their findings as they provide a summary in form of tables and diagrams. In the 2010 report there is the following diagram:
tEur=270.000 tAfr =440.000 tD = 640.000 tv = 804.000
In the 2014 report we read in page 3
quote:we estimate the population split time between modern humans on the one hand, and Neanderthals and Denisovans on the other, to between 553,000 and 589,000 (tv) years ago, and the split time between Neanderthals and Denisovans (tD) to 381,000 years ago.
In a second approach… we estimate the population split of Neanderthals and Denisovans from modern humans (tv) to 550,000–765,000 years ago, and the split time of Neanderthals and Denisovans (tD) to 445,000–473,000 years ago.
We go back to 2010 report where we read in page 1
quote:This revealed that Neanderthal DNA sequences and those of present-day humans share common ancestors on average about 800,000 years ago and that the population split of Neanderthal and modern human ancestors occurred 270,000–440,000 years ago.
440,000 ya is the time that the ancestors of present day Africans were separated from the trunk containing the ancestors of Eurasians and of whatever other race of the human species still existed at that time. Eurasians emerged 270,000 ya.
Whatever the time intervals, however, The Eurasians did not evolve out of the Africans. They emerged separately in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by dtango: First of all, we are not discussing Homo sapiens as a species but only that group of people that came to be known as Homo sapiens sapiens, in other words, the “South Africans” of 70kya.
The oldest remains of anatomical modern humans were found at Omo Kibish. It's located at Southeast of Ethiopia, near the border of Northern Kenya and Southern Sudan.
quote:Less than 200,000 years ago, anatomically modern humans (that is, humans with skeletons similar to those of present-day humans) appeared in Africa.
Thats the question you need to answer, since you are making these suggestions about South African technological contributions as being the from the "separate great white race". Which leads to the question. Where is your fossil record for "these great white South African" as the cradle for "Homo sapiens sapiens"?
Ethiopia is top choice for cradle of Homo sapiens
Radioactive dating finds that fossil skulls are 195,000 years old.
quote:Recent dating evidence re-establishes the Kibish fossils found in Ethiopia as the oldest modern human fossils known, at about 195,000 years.
The Kibish (Omo) fossils were found in 1967 in the Kibish region near the Omo River in Ethiopia. A partial skull and skeleton (Omo 1) and a skull lacking its face (Omo 2) were discovered in separate localities and dating techniques available at the time suggested they might be about 130,000 years old.
Herto skulls
In 2003 two partial and one nearly complete modern human skulls were found in Herto, Ethiopia, and were dated at about 160,000 years old. They were hailed as the oldest relatively complete and well-dated finds of our species Homo sapiens.
quote:Originally posted by dtango: Max Planck Institute is the one that sequenced Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA and it is their reports I am following. I need not be an expert to understand their findings as they provide a summary in form of tables and diagrams. In the 2010 report there is the following diagram:
The time is indeed interesting.
quote: Using DNA extracted from a finger bone found in Denisova Cave in southern Siberia, we have sequenced the genome of an archaic hominin to about 1.9-fold coverage. This individual is from a group that shares a common origin with Neanderthals
[...]
This has shown that all Neanderthals studied so far share a common mtDNA ancestor on the order of 100,000 years ago , and in turn, share a common ancestor with the mtDNAs of present-day humans about 500,000 years ago10, 18, 19 (as expected, this is older than the Neanderthal–modern human population split time of 270,000–440,000 years ago estimated from the nuclear genome.
--David Reich et al.
Is the assumed predecessor is the Homo heidelbergensis?
After that we have Neanderthals splitting from the modern human population known as Homo Sapiens Sapiens. If so, this would be correct, indeed. Neanderthals in eurasia and Homo Sapiens in Africa, form which mankind eventually emerged.
Homo heidelbergensis is older then all the species mentioned before, do you agree or not?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dtango: Whatever the time intervals, however, The Eurasians did not evolve out of the Africans. They emerged separately in Africa.
Of which Eurasians do you speak, and when was this suppose separation?
Can you be more specific?
quote:Originally posted by dtango: Who were they?
From where and who did Eurasians emerge?
quote:Originally posted by dtango: whatever other race of the human species still existed at that time.
Can you elaborate on what you imply, thanks in advance.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: Where is your fossil record for "these great white South African" as the cradle for "Homo sapiens sapiens"?
The white race has repeatedly tried to eliminate other races. They succeded with the Near Eastern Neanderthals, the European Neanderthals and the Tasmanians, as far as I know. So, I do not think of them as the “greatr white” but as the “great killers”.
quote:Ethiopia is top choice for cradle of Homo sapiens
I repeat that we are not discussing Homo sapiens but the birth place of the white race.
quote:Radioactive dating finds that fossil skulls are 195,000 years old.
The Africans reached the stage of AMH approximately 400kya and the Eurasians 200kya. You have no means, for the time being, to know to which race those AMH remains belonged.
quote:In 2003 two partial and one nearly complete modern human skulls were found in Herto, Ethiopia, and were dated at about 160,000 years old. They were hailed as the oldest relatively complete and well-dated finds of our species Homo sapiens.
I suggest the you be very careful in using the term “Homo sapiens”. Neanderthals and Denisovans (and probably Homo Florensiensis too) belonged to the species of Homo, as the individuals from Skhul and Qafzeh certainly belonged (they were almost AMH too).
If you are against racism you have to treat all races the same. Those who made it and reached modern times after 6.5 million years, they all have the right to be considered modern humans.
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: Of which Eurasians do you speak, and when was this suppose separation?
Can you be more specific?
Eurasians, by the geneticists, are called the non-Africans. As I already said Eurasians are distinguished from Africans because Africans were not contaminated by Neanderthal DNA. If you want a more detailed explanation you’ll have to study the 2010 report by the Max Planck Institute; you can find there the differences between various individuals from all over the world. As to the time, it is given as 270kya.
quote:From where and who did Eurasians emerge?
From the Archaic Homo sapiens in Africa and Asia. In Europe the Neanderthals emerged from the European Archaic Homo sapiens (we have in Northern Greece the well known cranium from Petralona). When the clade of the Ancestors of the Africans was separated, what remained in the trunk were the ancestors of all the remaining races of the species of Homo (according to the Instute, of course).
quote:Can you elaborate on what you imply, thanks in advance.
The reamaining ancestors in the trunk were those of the members of the white Euyropean-style race who emerged in Africa, the white Chinese-style race that emerged in Asia plus what dark skinned people emerged in the Far East.
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dtango: The white race has repeatedly tried to eliminate other races. They succeded with the Near Eastern Neanderthals, the European Neanderthals and the Tasmanians, as far as I know. So, I do not think of them as the “greatr white” but as the “great killers”.
I am not sure if there was a "white race" to eliminate the Near Eastern Neanderthals.
Can you elaborate?
The Tasmanians, yes we have witnessed this.
So, where do you put Tasmanians in the lineage of human evolution?
quote:Originally posted by dtango: I repeat that we are not discussing Homo sapiens but the birth place of the white race.
Yeah, you said that before, indeed. The birth of the" white race", as you put it, is being discussed here.
quote:Originally posted by dtango:
The Africans reached the stage of AMH approximately 400kya and the Eurasians 200kya. You have no means, for the time being, to know to which race those AMH remains belonged.
Yeah, Africans reached the stage of AMH that was shown.
It's also backed up by genetics:
quote:We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya).
An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 92, Issue 3, 454-459, 28 February 2013
quote:Neanderthal and modern human ancestors occurred 270,000–440,000 years ago
--David Reich et al.
But where is it shown that Eurasians reached the stage of AMH 200kya?
quote:Originally posted by dtango:I suggest the you be very careful in using the term “Homo sapiens”. Neanderthals and Denisovans (and probably Homo Florensiensis too) belonged to the species of Homo, as the individuals from Skhul and Qafzeh certainly belonged (they were almost AMH too).
If you are against racism you have to treat all races the same. Those who made it and reached modern times after 6.5 million years, they all have the right to be considered modern humans.
Yeah I will be careful with the usage of this term, Homo Sapiens. I while solely use it in the context as is used in archeology and anthropology.
quote:The genus Homo is believed to have existed for at least two million years, and modern humans (H. sapiens sapiens) first appeared in the Upper Palaeolithic. Among several extinct species are H. habilis, H. erectus, and H. neanderthalensis
Eurasians, by the geneticists, are called the non-Africans. As I already said Eurasians are distinguished from Africans because Africans were not contaminated by Neanderthal DNA. If you want a more detailed explanation you’ll have to study the 2010 report by the Max Planck Institute; you can find there the differences between various individuals from all over the world. As to the time, it is given as 270kya.
But where is it distinguished from Africans, in the sense of stipulation?
quote:Originally posted by dtango: From the Archaic Homo sapiens in Africa and Asia. In Europe the Neanderthals emerged from the European Archaic Homo sapiens (we have in Northern Greece the well known cranium from Petralona).
What do you mean by Archaic Homo sapiens in Africa and Asia?
Isn't the "Petralona" seen as "Homo heidelbergensis" and a predecessor to the "Neanderthals"?
quote:Originally posted by dtango: When the clade of the Ancestors of the Africans was separated, what remained in the trunk were the ancestors of all the remaining races of the species of Homo (according to the Instute, of course).
Yeah, I agree the Homo is a cluster name for all specimens of the predecessors.
quote:Originally posted by dtango:
The reamaining ancestors in the trunk were those of the members of the white Euyropean-style race who emerged in Africa, the white Chinese-style race that emerged in Asia plus what dark skinned people emerged in the Far East.
I am not sure what you mean by:
"Euyropean-style race who emerged in Africa;
"Chinese-style race that emerged in Asia";
"plus what dark skinned people emerged in the Far East."?
What specimens are you talking about?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: I am not sure if there was a "white race" to eliminate the Near Eastern Neanderthals.
Can you elaborate?
You want me to list all the attempts of the white people to eliminate the Native Americans and the Australians? They regard (the racist among them) themselves as human and the other races subhuman. On reaching Near East the Neanderthals there went extinct by 50kya. On reaching Europe the Neanderthals there went extinct by 30kya.
If you prefer to burden the black race with those crimes… it is up to you.
quote:The Tasmanians, yes we have witnessed this.
We owe it to the victims to expose the victimizers.
quote:So, where do you put Tasmanians in the lineage of human evolution?
Indigenous Asians.
quote:We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya).An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 92, Issue 3, 454-459, 28 February 2013
What do “Mbo”, “AO” and “ref” stand for?
quote:But where is it shown that Eurasians reached the stage of AMH 200kya?
All relevant theories agree that Homo sapiens sapiens emerged at about 200kya; forgetting, of course, all the other humans on earth at that time.
quote:The genus Homo is believed to have existed for at least two million years, and modern humans (H. sapiens sapiens) first appeared in the Upper Palaeolithic. Among several extinct species are H. habilis, H. erectus, and H. neanderthalensis
What did you expect of the racist lords of Oxford? It is not Homo Neanderthalensis. It is Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis. They had more brains than we do and were not killing other people. They were living side by side with Early modern Homo sapiens in Mount Carmel peacefully and there is also some evidence of interbreeding. Both these people disappeared after the “South Africans” arrived there. They had sexual relationships, however, with them and they produced fertile offspring, us, so they were the same species as we are. Shame on whoever wrote that entry in the dictionary.
Moreover, Homo sapiens sapiens did not appear in the Upper Palaeolithic but in the Middle Palaeolithic. Looks like that it is only the dictionary that belongs to Upper Palaeolithic here. Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: But where is it distinguished from Africans, in the sense of stipulation?
quote: I quote from page 4 of the 2010 report of the Max Planck Institute. Quote Neanderthals match the French genome on average 4.6 more often than they match the Yoruba genome (Table 1) Unquote
You have to read that report and study table 1. They talk of the genome of each group of people separately and the relationships between them as above the genome of the French, the Yoruba and the Neanderthal and they make a clear distinction between Africans and Eurasians.
quote:What do you mean by Archaic Homo sapiens in Africa and Asia?
Isn't the "Petralona" seen as "Homo heidelbergensis" and a predecessor to the "Neanderthals"?
I do not like the term Homo Heidelbergensis because it was coined by the university of Heidelberg to the older umbrella term “Archaic Homo sapiens” and now we have to say that Homo Rodensiensis is a Homo Heidelbergensis which I regard as ridiculous. The Archaic Homo sapiens are the immediate ancestors of all modern humans, AMH or not.
I am not sure what you mean by: "European-style race who emerged in Africa; "Chinese-style race that emerged in Asia"; "plus what dark skinned people emerged in the Far East."? What specimens are you talking about?
The specimens used by Max Planck Institute (as you will see in table 1) are: European = French and Sardinian Chinese = Han Dark skinned Asian = Papuan, Karitiana
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
You want me to list all the attempts of the white people to eliminate the Native Americans and the Australians? They regard (the racist among them) themselves as human and the other races subhuman. On reaching Near East the Neanderthals there went extinct by 50kya. On reaching Europe the Neanderthals there went extinct by 30kya.
If you prefer to burden the black race with those crimes… it is up to you.
Where is the evidence that Neanderthals went extinct due to harm by a incoming population, which you call the "white race"?
How do you know this population was "white"? On what fossil record to you base this?
And, as before. What specimen do you speak of, being responsible for this suppose act.
quote:
Me: So, where do you put Tasmanians in the lineage of human evolution?
You: Indigenous Asians.
Yeah, Tasmanians are/ were asians.
So where in the historical lineage do you put them, meaning in timing.
quote:Originally posted by dtango:
What do “Mbo”, “AO” and “ref” stand for?
It's a small ethnic group, now in Cameroon.
quote:Rather, like the majority of groups that now occupy sub-Saharan Africa, the Mbo are a Bantu-speaking population.
quote:Originally posted by dtango:
What do “Mbo”, “AO” and “ref” stand for?
I assume they mean Reference.
quote:Originally posted by dtango:
What do “Mbo”, “AO” and “ref” stand for?
A00 lineage, is the oldest clade of modern man and even predates the AMH. It was found in an African American male and in members of the "Mbo". “AO” is a split it used to be A1b, its a very old clade as well.
quote: "previously known basal lineage A1b (which we rename here as A0"
quote:
Figure 1.
Genealogy of A00, A0, and the Reference Sequence Lineages on which mutations were identified and lineages that were used for placing those mutations on the genealogy are indicated with thick and thin lines, respectively. The numbers of identified mutations on a branch are indicated in italics (four mutations in A00 were not genotyped but are indicated as shared by Mbo in this tree). The time estimates (and confidence intervals) are indicated kya for three nodes: the most recent common ancestor, the common ancestor between A0 and the reference (ref), and the common ancestor of A00 chromosomes from an African American individual and the Mbo. Two sets of ages are shown: on the left are estimates (numbers in black) obtained with the mutation rate based on recent whole-genome-sequencing results as described in the main text, and on the right are estimates (numbers in gray) based on the higher mutation rate used by Cruciani et al.6
quote: We report the discovery of an African American Y chromosome that carries the ancestral state of all SNPs that defined the basal portion of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree. We sequenced ∼240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya). Remarkably, this exceeds current estimates of the mtDNA TMRCA, as well as those of the age of the oldest anatomically modern human fossils. The extremely ancient age combined with the rarity of the A00 lineage, which we also find at very low frequency in central Africa, point to the importance of considering more complex models for the origin of Y chromosome diversity. These models include ancient population structure and the possibility of archaic introgression of Y chromosomes into anatomically modern humans. The A00 lineage was discovered in a large database of consumer samples of African Americans and has not been identified in traditional hunter-gatherer populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This underscores how the stochastic nature of the genealogical process can affect inference from a single locus and warrants caution during the interpretation of the geographic location of divergent branches of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree for the elucidation of human origins.
An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 92, Issue 3, 454-459, 28 February 2013
quote: All relevant theories agree that Homo sapiens sapiens emerged at about 200kya; forgetting, of course, all the other humans on earth at that time.
Which other "humans" do you speak of?
And what do you mean by "Homo sapiens sapiens"?
quote:Originally posted by dtango:
It is not Homo Neanderthalensis. It is Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis. They had more brains than we do and were not killing other people. They were living side by side with Early modern Homo sapiens in Mount Carmel peacefully and there is also some evidence of interbreeding. Both these people disappeared after the “South Africans” arrived there.
How do you know about their, Neanderthalensis, brain-activity and receptors?
How do you know they, the Neanderthalensis and Early modern Homo sapiens were living peacefully together? Where (location) and when (timing) was this?
quote:Originally posted by dtango: They had sexual relationships, however, with them and they produced fertile offspring, us, so they were the same species as we are. Shame on whoever wrote that entry in the dictionary.
Who is "they", of which species do you speak here?
quote:Originally posted by dtango: Moreover, Homo sapiens sapiens did not appear in the Upper Palaeolithic but in the Middle Palaeolithic. Looks like that it is only the dictionary that belongs to Upper Palaeolithic here
Can you explain the difference, if there is any, between the H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens?
Thanks in advance.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Homo sapiens sapiens is an outdated term from when Neandertal was thought to be a Homo sapiens, i.e., Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
You can rest that now there is only one Homo sapiens and that's us exclusively, anatomically/fully modern humans.
Genus: homo Species: sapiens Sub-species: sapiens
Since we are all one interbreeding species the sub-species tag sapiens is redundant.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
@dtango:There are no Neandertal Haplogroups in Homo Sapiens to confirm sexual mating between the two species, only autosomal dna.ALL Haplogroups whether Y chromosome or mitochondrial are Homo Sapiens.
Posts: 121 | From: Guyana | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dtango: The white race has repeatedly tried to eliminate other races. They succeded with the Near Eastern Neanderthals, the European Neanderthals and the Tasmanians, as far as I know. So, I do not think of them as the “greatr white” but as the “great killers”.
You are white why are you speaking in the third person? Wouldn't make more sense to say
" The white race has repeatedly tried to eliminate other races. We succeded with the Near Eastern Neanderthals, the European Neanderthals and the Tasmanians, as far as I know. So, I do not think us the “great white” but as the “great killers”.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: Where is the evidence that Neanderthals went extinct due to harm by a incoming population, which you call the "white race"?
I’ve already answered that. Those who left South Africa were the same people who reached North Europe and they were members of the white race. If you think differently, the burden of proof is on you. The Neanderthals, so much of the Near East as of Europe disappeared when the white guys reached Near East and Europe respectively.
quote:The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 92, Issue 3, 454-459, 28 February 2013
So, as regards Africans, you get the same information both from the above Journal and the Max Planck report. Where is the information provided by the Journal on the ancestry of the Euro-Americans?
quote:How do you know they, the Neanderthalensis and Early modern Homo sapiens were living peacefully together? Where (location) and when (timing) was this?
[/QUOTE]Can you explain the difference, if there is any, between the H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens? Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]
I am afraid we are going in circles. Homo Heidelbergensis was an Archaic Homo sapiens Homo sapiens sapiens is a silly name coined to those who left South Africa because at that time they thought that those were the only modern humans on earth.
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Homo sapiens sapiens is an outdated term from when Neandertal was thought to be a Homo sapiens, i.e., Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
You can rest that now there is only one Homo sapiens and that's us exclusively, anatomically/fully modern humans.
Genus: homo Species: sapiens Sub-species: sapiens
Since we are all one interbreeding species the sub-species tag sapiens is redundant.
So the beginning of my interpretation was correct?
The most widely-accepted theory of modern human origins - known as Out of Africa - holds that the ancestors of living humans (Homo sapiens) originated in Africa some 200,000 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: @dtango:There are no Neandertal Haplogroups in Homo Sapiens to confirm sexual mating between the two species, only autosomal dna.ALL Haplogroups whether Y chromosome or mitochondrial are Homo Sapiens.
I am not a geneticist. I go with what I read. Here is what I read in the 2014 report of the Max Planck Institute:
quote: Page 6, Discussion
We note that the observation that the Neanderthal DNA sequences in non-Africans share more derived alleles with the Neanderthal from the Caucasus than with Neanderthals from either Croatia or the Altai indicates that the archaic gene flow into non-Africans occurred at a time when Neanderthal populations had separated from each other. We also note that the introgressed Neanderthal DNA sequences suggest a population split from the Altai Neanderthal between 77,000 and 114,000 years ago (Supplementary Information section 13), well after 230,000 years ago when Neanderthal features appear in the fossil record. These and other results show that the allele sharing between Neanderthals and non-African populations is owing to recent admixture rather than ancient population subdivision, an alternative which we and others previously considered possible.
So, what you have to say about haplogroups and autosomal chromosomes, tell to Svaabo, not to me.
Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
You are white why are you speaking in the third person? Wouldn't make more sense to say
" The white race has repeatedly tried to eliminate other races. We succeded with the Near Eastern Neanderthals, the European Neanderthals and the Tasmanians, as far as I know. So, I do not think us the “great white” but as the “great killers”.
Well, I should have said so if I was white by choice and I approved of the conduct of the white race. It was not my choice to be born into the white race or into the Greek nationality or even into my own family. By choice I am only a left-winger, which means I hate white and black kings equally.
My brothers are the left-wingers irrespective of race and nationality. I only care for justice and the true story, but you seem to consider bias indispensable. Posts: 42 | From: Athens, Greece | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
I’ve already answered that. Those who left South Africa were the same people who reached North Europe and they were members of the white race. If you think differently, the burden of proof is on you. The Neanderthals, so much of the Near East as of Europe disappeared when the white guys reached Near East and Europe respectively.
Who are "those"?
What species is "those", on what/ which fossil records you base this "those". Can you be more specific, and name the branch?
Thanks in advance.
quote:Originally posted by dtango:
So, as regards Africans, you get the same information both from the above Journal and the Max Planck report. Where is the information provided by the Journal on the ancestry of the Euro-Americans?
Euro-Americans do not carry these ancestral basal clades of modern man. That's the thing about human-genome. It is rooted in Africa. Within the oldest branches of people. Mbo are the oldest of mankind. Not the Khoisan, Fur or Masalit. And certainly not the "white" European.
Thus: These models include ancient population structure and the possibility of archaic introgression of Y chromosomes into anatomically modern humans.
quote:Originally posted by dtango:
How do you know they, the Neanderthalensis and Early modern Homo sapiens were living peacefully together? Where (location) and when (timing) was this?
So do you have a academic sources, with peer reviewed evaluation on this propelled topic. Thanks in advance.
quote:The failure of early modern humans to survive in the Levant during the early last glacial implies they were not yet physiologically and/or behaviorally well-adapted to cold climates and Palearctic environments, or at least not as well-adapted as neanderthals.[...]As noted above, the replacement of modern humans by neanderthals in the Levant, suggests African modern humans were rather poorly-adapted to cold climates.
--Stanley H. Ambrose Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois,
Journal of Human Evolution (1998) 34, 623–651
Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans
I am afraid we are going in circles. Homo Heidelbergensis was an Archaic Homo sapiens Homo sapiens sapiens is a silly name coined to those who left South Africa because at that time they thought that those were the only modern humans on earth.
Yeah, I am afraid of this as well. This is why I repeatedly have asked for detailed/ specific information on specimen. Because all specimen carry certain detailed/ specific attributes. Saying "those" who left South Africa, repeatedly is using a vague term. And brings confusion along.
Homo Heidelbergensis was a species present in Africa, Europe and even Asia, correct?
And if the Homo Heidelbergensis is synonymous to Archaic Homo sapiens. What was the offspring of these Homo Heidelbergensis, or as you like to call them Archaic Homo sapiens?
In other words, what came after the Archaic Homo sapiens?
Chronologically when and where?
Thanks in advance.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
You are white why are you speaking in the third person? Wouldn't make more sense to say
" The white race has repeatedly tried to eliminate other races. We succeded with the Near Eastern Neanderthals, the European Neanderthals and the Tasmanians, as far as I know. So, I do not think us the “great white” but as the “great killers”.
Well, I should have said so if I was white by choice and I approved of the conduct of the white race. It was not my choice to be born into the white race or into the Greek nationality or even into my own family. By choice I am only a left-winger, which means I hate white and black kings equally.
My brothers are the left-wingers irrespective of race and nationality. I only care for justice and the true story, but you seem to consider bias indispensable.
Can you explain, why biologically you are "white"?
What do you think of the Greek Golden Dawn Party?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
And we see evidence of human occupation in the form of stone tools right across the region. At other times those populations completely vanished, and we pick up the evidence of evolving modern humans in East Africa, or down in the south instead. And we have to remember that there are large parts of Africa where we have stone tools, but no fossil record to show us who was making those tools.
We've got no ancient human fossils from central Africa or West Africa, none at all. So we have to bear in mind that our picture is still limited in terms of the sites that have been excavated and the information we've got from them.
[...]
We end up with quite a complex story, with even some of this ancient DNA coming back into modern humans within Africa. So our evolutionary story is mostly, but not absolutely, a Recent African Origin.
The Ogolian, an extremely arid episode beginning in West Africa around 23,000 BP, is represented at Ounjougou by a significant sedimentary and archaeological hiatus. It is not until the return of humid climatic conditions at the beginning of the Holocene that we once again find evidence for humans in this part of the continent. It is thus in a context of heavy rains and recolonization of the vegetal cover, at the beginning of the 10th millennium BC, that a new population was established on the Bandiagara Plateau. At the Ounjougou site complex, several sites have made it possible to define two occupation phases chronologically situated between 10,000 and 7,000 cal BC. Strikingly, the presence of pottery is attested from the first half of the 10th mill. BC. This is the earliest evidence for pottery in sub-Saharan Africa. The use of stone milling material is confirmed from the 8th mill. BC by the discovery of a millstone and grinder.
Issues and objectives
It is thus within a context of climatic and environmental change, of migrations and repopulation of a region of Africa abandoned for several thousand years that the craft of making pottery and the use of milling emerged. Our aims are to better understand the material culture of these Early Holocene populations, to determine their origins and identify their development, and finally to clarify the paleoenvironmental context in which they were established and evolved. Understanding of the mechanisms in which humans invented pottery and milling tools clearly lie at the heart of our research problem. Our main objective is therefore to excavate stratified sites located in the valley base, geologically in situ, to obtain the broadest sample possible of material remains, to situate the site in relative and absolute chronologies and to place them in relation to the geomorphological and archaeobotanical sequence. By comparison to the rare contemporaneous assemblages in West and Saharan Africa, we hope to retrace the route of humans after the vegetation had returned at the beginning of the Holocene. Finally, via systematic survey, we hope to discover contemporaneous site yielding complementary data on these populations, in terms of subsistence economy or the use of space.
The 10th and 9th millennia BC (Phase 1 of the Holocene of Ounjougou)
It is at the site of Ravin de la Mouche that we identify the first Holocene sedimentary sequence, in the form of a channel cut into the yellow Pleistocene silts, infilled with coarse sand and gravel. The chronological placement of the upper layers of this first group has been determined by 12 radiocarbon dates and 3 OSL dates between 9,400 and 8,400 cal BC. The lithic industry discovered in stratigraphic position shows that unidirectional reduction predominates, but other techniques, such as bipolar reduction on anvil and multidirectional, were also employed. Quartz was the main raw material used and the typological range includes small retouched flakes, borers and especially an original type of bifacial armatures with covering retouch.
Three ceramic sherds are linked to this industry. They all come from the base of the HA1A stratigraphic unit. Their thickness ranges between 4.5 and 7 mm. The only way is refundable on board simple hemispherical bowl of 21 cm diameter. One sherd shows a roulette decoration, which could not be further identified. Microscopic analysis of two samples revealed that they contain a silicate matrix, without carbonates, with 20-30% of non-plastic inclusions. These consist mainly of single crystal quartz well rounded with an edge of recrystallization, with a fine to very fine diameter. These quartz are quite similar to those found in local sandstone and clays. Mineralogical analysis of the nearest clay deposits by X-ray diffraction revealed the presence of kaolinite, whose absence in ceramics indicates a cooking temperature above 550C. The pastes were prepared using non-calcareous clays with little prior treatment, as shown by their texture somewhat chaotic. The serial structure indicates that no temper has been added. Only one sherd contains fragments of grog, with a maximum diameter of 4 mm. However, this low percentage may indicate involuntary incorporation during the preparation of the paste.
The 8th millennium BC (Phase 2 of the Holocene of Ounjougou)
The next part of the Holocene sequence is documented at two principal sites – the Ravin du Hibou and Damatoumou. The archaeological layers are chronologically situated by an OSL date and 7 radiocarbon dates (8,000-7,000 cal BC). The lithic industry is characterized by reduction of quartz cobbles by unidirectional, bidirectional, multidirectional, peripheral and bipolar on anvil reduction techniques. The assemblage is composed mainly of microlithic tools: borers, backed points, notches, denticulates, sidescrapers, retouched flakes and geometric microliths.
The next part of the Holocene sequence is documented at two principal sites – the Ravin du Hibou and Damatoumou. The archaeological layers are chronologically situated by an OSL date and 7 radiocarbon dates (8,000-7,000 cal BC). The lithic industry is characterized by reduction of quartz cobbles by unidirectional, bidirectional, multidirectional, peripheral and bipolar on anvil reduction techniques. The assemblage is composed mainly of microlithic tools: borers, backed points, notches, denticulates, sidescrapers, retouched flakes and geometric microliths.
West African and Saharan context
The ceramics and grinding material from phases 1 and 2 at Ounjougou are the earliest evidence of this type currently known in sub-Saharan Africa. In our present state of knowledge, this pottery at Ounjougou may have resulted from a center of invention in the current Sahelo-Sudanian zone with exportation somewhat later toward the Central Sahara, where it is known from the 9th millennium BC. The pottery types at Tagalagal in Niger, the earliest known for this region, were already quite diversified when they first appeared, perhaps confirming the adoption of the use of pottery from another place of origin. The lithic industry of phases 1 and 2 is characterized by southern affinities, including quartz microliths using bipolar reduction on anvil proper to the "sub-Saharan microlithic technocomplex" defined by K. MacDonald, except for the bifacial armatures which are only found in the north, in the Saharan zone, at slightly younger sites. A cultural influx from the southeastern sub-Saharan zone toward the Sahara could explain the spread of quartz microlithic industries across West Africa. First observed in Cameroon at Shum Laka (30,600-29,000 BC), we next find them in the Ivory Coast at Bingerville (14,100-13,400 BC), in Nigeria at Iwo Eleru (11,460-11,050 BC) and finally at Ounjougou (phase 1: 10th mill. BC).
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic