posted
Just thought some would like to know NGC is going to air "Neanderthal Code" on Sunday, September 21 at 9pm EST 6pm PST on channel 276.
Posts: 148 | From: Sirius | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^Oh We know, it's just another sad and desperate attempt at trying to disconnect Europeans from Africa. As if they're their own completely separate human population. It's preposterous to even believe there is a connection because of some erroneous similarities found between archaic neanderthal and modern humans.
--------------
Earliest Known Human Had Neanderthal Qualities Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News
Aug. 22, 2008 -- The world's first known modern human was a tall, thin individual -- probably male -- who lived around 200,000 years ago and resembled present-day Ethiopians, save for one important difference: He retained a few primitive characteristics associated with Neanderthals, according to a series of forthcoming studies conducted by multiple international research teams.
The extraordinary findings, which will soon be outlined in a special issue of the Journal of Human Evolution devoted to the first known Homo sapiens, also reveal information about the material culture of the first known people, their surroundings, possible lifestyle and, perhaps most startling, their probable neighbors -- Homo erectus.
"Omo I," as the researchers refer to the find, would probably have been considered healthy-looking and handsome by today's standards, despite the touch of Neanderthal.
"From the size of the preserved bones, we estimated that Omo I was tall and slender, most likely around 5'10" tall and about 155 pounds," University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson, who co-authored at least two of the new papers, told Discovery News.
Pearson said another, later fossil was also recently found. It too belonged to a "moderately tall -- around 5'9" -- and slender individual."
"Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.
Building On Leakey's Work
Parts of the Omo I skeleton were first excavated in 1967 by a team from the Kenya National Museums under the direction of Richard Leakey, who wrote a forward that will appear in the upcoming journal.
Leakey and his colleagues unearthed two other skeletons, one of which has received little attention. Two of the three skeletons found at the site have been a literal bone of contention among scientists over the past four decades. Reliable dating techniques for such early periods did not exist in the late 60's, and the researchers could not agree upon the identity of the two skeletons.
From 1999 to the present, at least two other major expeditions to the southern Ethiopian site -- called the Kibish Formation -- have taken place, with the goal of solving the mysteries and learning more about what the area was like 200,000 years ago.
As evidenced by photographs showing the researchers followed by armed guards, work at this location proved challenging.
"It took us five plus days to get there from Addis," paleobiologist Josh Trapani of the Smithsonian Institution and the University of Michigan told Discovery News. "Once there, we had intense heat, hyenas outside camp, crocodiles in the river, many insects and two remarkable and very different groups of people, the Mursi and the Nyangatom on opposite sides of the river who were our partners in some of this work."
Primitive, Yet Still Like Us
The ordeals proved successful, as the scientists have recovered new bones for Omo I, some of which perfectly fit into place with the remains Leakey unearthed over 40 years ago.
Several scientists analyzed the bones, including a very detailed, comparative look at the shoulder bone by French paleontologist Jean-Luc Voisin. They concluded that, without a doubt, Omo I represents an anatomically modern human, with bones in the arms, hands and ankles somewhat resembling those of other, earlier human-like species.
"Most of the anatomical features of Omo are like modern humans. Only a few features are similar to more primitive hominids, including Neanderthals and Homo erectus," explained John Fleagle, distinguished professor in the Department of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University in New York.
"Omo II is more primitive in its cranial anatomy," he added, "and shares more features with Homo erectus and fewer with modern humans."
Unlikely Neighbors
New dating of the finds determined that Omo II lived at around the same time and location as Omo I, indicating that Homo sapiens may have coexisted with Homo erectus, a.k.a. "Upright Man," who is believed to have been the first hominid to leave Africa.
Fleagle explained the detailed nature of the latest dating techniques that place both skeletons at around the 200,000-year-old period.
He said both skeletons were recovered from rocky geological layers, with "Adam" unearthed just above a layer of volcanic rock. Precise dates can then be calculated because "when volcanic rocks form, they start a radiometric clock that ticks at a regular rate."
Fleagle added, "By looking at the ratio of parent minerals and daughter minerals you can calculate when the rocks were initially formed."
Material Culture In A Different Environment
Anthropologist John Shea sifted through the Kibish dirt and rocks hoping to find evidence for early material culture.
He found it.
"The assemblages are dominated by relatively high-quality raw materials procured as pebbles from local gravels," Shea determined, adding that he unearthed stone tools flaked on both sides, hand axes, picks and spear-shaped objects. It appears that most were not retouched. So, once the early modern humans crafted their tools, they likely left them as is.
Trapani, who conducted a study on fossil fish at the site, said later-dated barbed bone points recovered from the site look remarkably like catfish spines, which "may be purely coincidental." Or, "alternatively, perhaps the spines impressed early hunters with their potential utility as flesh-piercing hunting implements."
Trapani added, "This may have come about through simple visual inspection or, perhaps -- more likely -- through painful lesson."
Living High on the Hog
Supporting Trapani's findings that large catfish, as well as Nile perch and other fish, were in abundance, studies on the site's geology indicate that conditions were wetter 200,000 years ago.
Yet another study, on the large mammal fauna at Kibish, found the humans were surrounded by big game.
Smithsonian Institution archaeobiologist Zelalem Assefa identified hippos, giraffes, elephants, horses, rhinos, numerous other hoofed mammals and more.
"In terms of settlement strategy, the early modern humans at Kibish might have practiced some type of seasonal based settlement strategy -- possibly following the movement of big game," Assefa told Discovery News.
Perhaps his two most unusual finds were that very few remains for non-human primates and carnivores were found, which puzzles the researchers, but may suggest that the first known humans didn't have many, if any, animal predators.
Secondly, Assefa was surprised to find duiker (a small, shy antelope that usually prefers forest cover) and giant forest hog remains. The giant forest hog is the largest wild pig on Earth, weighing as much as 600 pounds. Since other parts of the site were probable grasslands, the presence of these two animals suggests a riparian forest must have also been nearby.
An Unfinished Story
Although Omo I may be the world's "Adam" for now, it's possible that modern humans emerged even earlier at some other place in Africa.
"We only have evidence for what we have found," Fleagle said, adding that there "almost certainly were modern individuals before Omo I."
He explained that Ethiopia's geology has deposits suitable to bone preservation and discovery, which is perhaps why so many fossil hominids have been excavated there over the years.
"Paleontology is a very opportunistic science," he concluded. "When we have a record of fossils in one place, we can reconstruct what happened there, but it is impossible to say what was going on in places from which there is no fossil record."
--------------
A description of the Omo I postcranial skeleton, including newly discovered fossils
Osbjorn M. Pearson
Journal of Human Evolution
August 2008
"While it once may have been reasonable to interpret the presence of these ‘‘Neandertal-like’’ features in Eurasian early modern humans as potential evidence of gene flow from neighboring and contemporaneous Neandertal populations, the presence of these features in Omo I raises the distinct possibility that Eurasian early modern humans inherited these features from an African ancestor rather than Neandertals."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, we've discussed this before but I don't think the premise of that program was to say early modern humans had 'neanderthal' features since that is a misnomer anyway because such features as that article you cited say they were shared by earlier Homo erectus, and Neanderthal was not an African species but early humans were!
The whole point I should stress about the program that I brought up before is the narrator's (and other experts) use of the word "we" and "us" for modern humans having Neanderthal ancestry. It is in fact a Eurocentric premise because if modern humans did have Neanderthal genetic ancestry, the only humans who do would be of European descent i.e. 'white' people! White people do NOT represent all of humanity so I don't know why they talk of humankind in general. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ It's not that the program is about early first moderns in Africa, but actually, as you said, as did I, this is a desperate attempt to disconnect recent Europeans from Africa. As it stands the earliest modern humans had archaic features.
Archaic features, which is now seeming to be the new erroneous correlation, since Euro-centrists see they are common amongst Neanderthal. Omo I proves they're just archaic features and nothing more.
If one would note, the new postulation of Euro-centrics is the Neanderthal admixture, I.e, multi-regional, and a failure to accept OOA.
posted
First off I watched a program on Discovery about Neanderthal and it was really confusing and appalling how they kept referring to Neanderthal as "Our Ancestors"...Neanderthal is genetically different from us Homo sapiens and why are Neanderthals shown as white people....?
Last I checked Neanderthals skin cannot be determined as of yet.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But notice who "our" is. Decades ago "we/us/our" was a code word for whites/Euros when discussing fossil humanity.
But when I look at the face of Wolpert(?) or Bradley I can understand why they claim Neanderthal heritage. It must have been rough for them as children <smile>
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Indeed. As I just said, Eurocentrics love to equate Europeans with *all* of humankind.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: Last I checked Neanderthals skin cannot be determined as of yet.
Of course you cannot determine what color skin they had from their fossils, BUT as Rasol has stated several times before they have inhabited Europe and overall lower latitudes with lower UV exposure long before humans left Africa. Their very body structure per Allen's rule is adapted to cold climate via their short stocky builds with short limbs. As such, it is likely they were white if not very light-skinned.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if this Neaderthal gene that is supposedly in Europeans is also found in the ancient Caucasoid East Africans.
;-)
NOT!
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JMT: Just thought some would like to know NGC is going to air "Neanderthal Code" on Sunday, September 21 at 9pm EST 6pm PST on channel 276.
Is it available via satellite?
Posts: 91 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
They went crazy with the Neanderthal code. Many things were postulated. I knew this was going to happen. The anthropologists posited a mix of humans and Neanderthal saying "we" received our cognitive thinking skills, as well as the ability to use language etc....by mixing with Neanderthal. They had modern humans entering Europe looking like white Arabs. Preposterous. The whole show.
Ian Tattersol and another anthropologist totally disagreed with every single notion though, and said there is not enough evidence.......John Hawks(whom debunked always mentions as visiting Dienekes site often) then says even if it was a little admixture that's all we need to combine with Neanderthal and advance our cognitive thinking skills etc... This is simply a notion for Europeans to be different, and somehow more intelligent(due to admixture with Neanderthal) than the rest of the world.
I called it. I knew Neanderthal would be a next refuge for these idiotic prejudice Euros. Sad.
Anyone else saw it...? Let me know, this needs to be discussed.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: They had modern humans entering Europe looking like white Arabs. Preposterous. The whole show.
To me this detail is expected and not that serious (and neither then is the show all that serious I guess .. pending the informational aspect - I'll have to have a look).
quote:They went crazy with the Neanderthal code. Many things were postulated.
That's what they gotta do lol.
quote:The anthropologists posited a mix of humans and Neanderthal saying "we" received our cognitive thinking skills, as well as the ability to use language etc....by mixing with Neanderthal.
If that is how they really put it - it's laughable.
From both an archaeological/historical and an anatomical standpoint.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: They had modern humans entering Europe looking like white Arabs. Preposterous. The whole show.
To me this detail is expected and not that serious (and neither then is the show all that serious I guess .. pending the informational aspect - I'll have to have a look).
quote:They went crazy with the Neanderthal code. Many things were postulated.
That's what they gotta do lol.
quote:The anthropologists posited a mix of humans and Neanderthal saying "we" received our cognitive thinking skills, as well as the ability to use language etc....by mixing with Neanderthal.
If that is how they really put it - it's laughable.
From both an archaeological/historical and an anatomical standpoint.
Yes that's the gist of the show. Pretty desperate notions. They saw that two different species of baboons were able to mate and produce wealthy offsprings, so anthropologists said Neanderthal and humans who are closer(meaning they split from eachother in less time, then the baboons had split from eachother) said Neanderthal and modern humans were able to do the same with no problems. Many of the hybrid baboon offsprings came out with extra/ new combination's never seen before, they said, and this might have happened with humans and Nendertal, and said many of the features would have been advantageous. They said that Neanderthal had the same Fox-p2 gene which gives us the ability to speak, and through mixing with Neanderthal "we" inherited this gene.
From the show, Neanderthal Code,
(Debunked and Dienekes idol)
Anthropologist John Hawks:
quote:"When people talk about interbreeding, they say "well, if they interbed, it wasn't very much", but even a very small amount of interbreeding gives an opportunity for these advantageous things to enter populations, so this tiny amount of interbreeding if it was small, is enough to have a hugely important effect on the population later in time"
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Please clarify. Aren't all Homo ultimately an African species?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ ..... earlier Homo erectus, and Neanderthal was not an African species but early humans were!
Yea but I think he's saying Neanderthal evolved in Europe, from homo Erectus, who came from Africa. So the Neanderthal as he looked didn't walk OOA.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have the Nat Geo channel so I didn't see it.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: They went crazy with the Neanderthal code. Many things were postulated. I knew this was going to happen...
Well I can't say I'm surprised by that myself.
quote:The anthropologists posited a mix of humans and Neanderthal saying "we" received our cognitive thinking skills, as well as the ability to use language etc....by mixing with Neanderthal...
So what exactly do they mean?! That *all* human populations and not just Europeans have Neanderthal ancestry?? Because obviously Europeans aren't the only humans to possess cognitive thinking skills and language! LMAO
Also, it's apparent that these anthropologists are unaware of actual archaeological evidence which verifies that the modern human skills and behavior they speak of arose in situ Africa where modern humans oiginated!
quote:They had modern humans entering Europe looking like white Arabs. Preposterous. The whole show.
Well this part is cliche of all programs on paleolthic Europe.
quote:Ian Tattersol and another anthropologist totally disagreed with every single notion though, and said there is not enough evidence.......John Hawks(whom debunked always mentions as visiting Dienekes site often) then says even if it was a little admixture that's all we need to combine with Neanderthal and advance our cognitive thinking skills etc... This is simply a notion for Europeans to be different, and somehow more intelligent(due to admixture with Neanderthal) than the rest of the world.
Of course. This is nothing more for Euros to distance themselves from their African ancestry and find their 'specialness' or 'uniqueness' even supremacy in Neanderthals!
quote:I called it. I knew Neanderthal would be a next refuge for these idiotic prejudice Euros. Sad.
Hey. It's as I said, the Euro-nuts would rather claim ancestry from the Yeti than their true ancestry from Africa.
quote: Yes that's the gist of the show. Pretty desperate notions. They saw that two different species of baboons were able to mate and produce wealthy offsprings, so anthropologists said Neanderthal and humans who are closer(meaning they split from each other in less time, then the baboons had split from eachother) said Neanderthal and modern humans were able to do the same with no problems. Many of the hybrid baboon offsprings came out with extra/ new combination's never seen before, they said, and this might have happened with humans and Nendertal, and said many of the features would have been advantageous. They said that Neanderthal had the same Fox-p2 gene which gives us the ability to speak, and through mixing with Neanderthal "we" inherited this gene.
Wait, wait. Hold up. Okay first of all, I thought through analysis of viable Neanderthal DNA it's been found that (a)Neanderthals and humans are NOT as closely related as these Euronuts wish us to be and (b) That NO human today has ANY Neanderthal genes for the reasons cited in (a). Yes it's true that closely related species have been known to hybridize. Not only is it true for the baboons that they speak of but it was also true for our early hominid ancestors whom genetics has shown have interbred and hybridized with chimpanzees at various occasions. But such hybridizations can ONLY take place if the species are very closely related that genetically they have not truly diverged yet. Once the species diverges from one another, crossbreeding no longer produces fertile offspring as is the case of a mule (the result of horse and donkey mating) and through more genetic divergence any crossbreeding after that can no longer yield offspring that is even viable (alive). Longer divergence after that and there is no conception at all.
Judging by genetic analysis from previous programs. It has been shown that if any crossbreeding happened between Neanderthal and humans, the resulting offspring would be sterile if even alive in the first place. Which is precisely why NO human descendant carries Neanderthal genes!
quote:From the show, Neanderthal Code,
(Debunked and Dienekes idol)
Anthropologist John Hawks:
"When people talk about interbreeding, they say "well, if they interbed, it wasn't very much", but even a very small amount of interbreeding gives an opportunity for these advantageous things to enter populations, so this tiny amount of interbreeding if it was small, is enough to have a hugely important effect on the population later in time"
If so where is the genetic evidence??! How is the Fox p-2 gene evidence of crossbreeding just because it is shared by both species?? Has it occurred to them that if Neanderthal only lived in Europe and Western Eurasia, why then do human populations everywhere else not only have the genes but are acutally genetically older i.e. populations of Australia, Oceania, South Asia, and of course Africa?!!
OMG and these guys call themselves experts?!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Posted by Djehuti : But such hybridizations can ONLY take place if the species are very closely related that genetically they have not truly diverged yet. Once the species diverges from one another, crossbreeding no longer produces fertile offspring as is the case of a mule (the result of horse and donkey mating) and through more genetic divergence any crossbreeding after that can no longer yield offspring that is even viable (alive). Longer divergence after that and there is no conception at all.
Two quotes from the show.
quote: Trenton W. Holliday: "These baboons have been separated from eachother somewhere between 500kya and 1.8 million years ago. If we look to the Modern Human vs Neanderthal example, we believe that those two species diverged between 200kya and 750kya, much less time. So if these baboons can get together and interbreed, then absolutely Nenderthal and Modern Humans "would've" come together, interbred and produced viable fertile offspring that could have then re-produced themselves."
quote: "Interbreeding must have been possible, atleast on some level, closer related species of primates and other mammals interbreed on occasion, so I don't see why Neanderthal and modern humans wouldn't, but the EVIDENCE for it, is jut not there --- Katerina Havarti, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ One problem with that: The two baboon species have really NOT completely diverged since not only do they inhabit the same continent but often times the same land habitat so despite whatever divergance may have taken place between the two species it wasn't complete by their tendency to crossbreed and produce fertile offspring back in populations of both species.
Humans and Neanderthals on the other hand have been geographically seperated for hundreds of millennia with no contact until the great African emmigration. The ONLY evidence we have thus far of any Neanderthal-human interbreeding are a couple of skeletons found which really aren't that conclusive. Even if they were hybrids, there is nothing to tell us if they were fertile beings or sterile like mules. It would have to be the latter since genetics shows we (as in all humans) possess no Neanderthal DNA. And yes that includes Europeans!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:^ One problem with that: The two baboon species have really NOT completely diverged since not only do they inhabit the same continent but often times the same land habitat so despite whatever divergance may have taken place between the two species it wasn't complete by their tendency to crossbreed and produce fertile offspring back in populations of both species.
Not too sure about baboons, but one was an Olive baboon, and the other was a Hamadryas.
quote: Humans and Neanderthals on the other hand have been geographically seperated for hundreds of millennia with no contact until the great African emmigration. The ONLY evidence we have thus far of any Neanderthal-human interbreeding are a couple of skeletons found which really aren't that conclusive. Even if they were hybrids, there is nothing to tell us if they were fertile beings or sterile like mules. It would have to be the latter since genetics shows we (as in all humans) possess no Neanderthal DNA. And yes that includes Europeans!
I've heard the sterile offspring notion before. But even if we do look at it, as modern humans and Neanderthal were able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring that could then reproduce, well then there should be a ton of genetic evidence, which there isn't. So either way it gets shot down.
To quote Katerina Havarti
"The evidence for it is just not there"
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Not too sure about baboons, but one was an Olive baboon, and the other was a Hamadryas.
As much as I hate to use wiki, I'm lazy right now and it is the fastest source you can find:
Range & Habitat The Olive Baboon inhabits a strip of 25 equatorial African countries, very nearly ranging from the east to west coast of the continent. The exact boundaries of this strip are a little blurry, as the species' territory overlaps with that of other baboon species. In many places, this has resulted in cross-breeding between species. For example, there has been considerable hybridization between the Olive Baboon and the Hamadryas Baboon in Ethiopia. Cross-breeding with the Yellow Baboon and the Guinea Baboon has also been observed. Although this has been noted, the hybrids have not yet been heavily studied.
Throughout its wide range, the Olive Baboon can be found in a number of different habitats. It is usually classified as savanna-dwelling, living in the wide plains of the grasslands. The grasslands, especially those near open woodland, do make up a large part of its habitat, but the baboon also inhabits jungles and deserts. Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, both support Olive Baboon populations in dense tropical forests.
^ Unlike these baboon species, Humans and Neanderthals on the other hand have been geographically separated from each other by hundreds of thousands of years.
quote:I've heard the sterile offspring notion before. But even if we do look at it, as modern humans and Neanderthal were able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring that could then reproduce, well then there should be a ton of genetic evidence, which there isn't. So either way it gets shot down.
To quote Katerina Havarti
"The evidence for it is just not there"
My point exactly. Which is why not only is the very notion of modern humans having Neanderthal ancestry wrong, but the premise that modern thought and behavior such as abstract thought and even speech being attributed to Neanderthal is just plainly ABSURD! Especially considering that again Neanderthal was indigenous to Europe and northern southwest Asia, while the vast majority of human populations did not inhabit those regions!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: How is the Fox p-2 gene evidence of crossbreeding just because it is shared by both species?? Has it occurred to them that if Neanderthal only lived in Europe and Western Eurasia, why then do human populations everywhere else not only have the genes but are acutally genetically older i.e. populations of Australia, Oceania, South Asia, and of course Africa?!!
OMG and these guys call themselves experts?!
Are you talking about the FOXP2 gene that is implicated in the development of spoken language skills? If so, all that tells us is that Neanderthals could talk, not that we're all descended from Neanderthals.
At least it renders inaccurate all portrayals of Neanderthals as grunting subhumans.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: How is the Fox p-2 gene evidence of crossbreeding just because it is shared by both species?? Has it occurred to them that if Neanderthal only lived in Europe and Western Eurasia, why then do human populations everywhere else not only have the genes but are acutally genetically older i.e. populations of Australia, Oceania, South Asia, and of course Africa?!!
OMG and these guys call themselves experts?!
Are you talking about the FOXP2 gene that is implicated in the development of language skills? If so, all that tells us is that Neanderthals could talk, not that we're all descended from Neanderthals.
Yes it's the gene that enables us to speak. It was postulated in the Neanderthal code, that Neanderthal also possessed this gene, and through hybridization it either was inherited or enhanced this gene in modern humans.
---------
Quotes from show: Neanderthal code
quote:The narrator says: "Scientist believe the human version of Fox P2 emerged about 200kya, roughly the same time modern humans(homo-sapiens) emerged in East Africa."
quote: John hawks: "This gene shouldn't be in both of them, in should be in or the other, so you have to wonder did it get there by interbreeding was there an interaction between these populations that put that gene there, or that brought it from them into us?"
quote:Narrator says: Two other genes involved in brain development have recently been found in modern DNA, some scientists think that these genes have a sign of an Neanderthal origin. Modern humans who arrived 40kya were resourceful and intelligent, capable beings. But they may not have had the same range of mental abilities that we have today. Only by mixing with ancient humans like Neanderthal, would they have fine tuned their brains and become truly modern.
quote: John hawk: "When we think of modern human leaving Africa. I imagine that when this group was expanding they come into contact with other human populations..their going to pick up anything that makes you smarter or gives you some cognitive advantage."
quote:Narrator says: Many anthropologists don't accept this argument. They believe the DNA findings are still too new, and incomplete to prove the case for interbreeding.
quote:Ian Tattersall: "I would certainly not deny that some "hanky panky" was going on, what obviously did not happen, was any major biologically significant exchange of genes"
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:John Hawks: "This gene shouldn't be in both of them, in should be in or the other, so you have to wonder did it get there by interbreeding was there an interaction between these populations that put that gene there, or that brought it from them into us?"
For an expert, this guy is obviously a few bones short of a fossil. Has it ever occurred to him that perhaps Neanderthals and modern humans inherited it from a common ancestor a few hundred millennia back?
Subscribing to multiregionalism has an amazing effect on the intellect of even scientists, it would appear.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, it's not so much the hypothesis of multi-regionalism itself so much as the bias prejudice that drives it!
These so-called "experts" merely run away from the evidence that continuously piles up in front of them such as...
Herto Man
--"Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.--- University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Yes it's the gene (FOXp2) that enables us to speak. It was postulated in the Neanderthal code, that Neanderthal also possessed this gene, and through hybridization it either was inherited or enhanced this gene in modern humans.
And again this is the range of Neanderthal:
The vast majority of humanity did not even reside in those areas but everywhere else, especially in the tropics and of course in the homeland of humanity-- Africa. So how do the "experts" think all these other populations inherited the gene from Neanderthals??! It's typical Eurocentered rubbish!
John hawks: "This gene shouldn't be in both of them, in should be in or the other, so you have to wonder did it get there by interbreeding was there an interaction between these populations that put that gene there, or that brought it from them into us?"
How can this man say something like that, when we just now started analyzing Neanderthal DNA as well as the above facts that I presented?! Why can't the more logical conclusion be reached like by T-rex that the gene is probably an apomorphy of the genus Homo??!
John hawk: "When we think of modern human leaving Africa. I imagine that when this group was expanding they come into contact with other human populations..their going to pick up anything that makes you smarter or gives you some cognitive advantage."
So what about the modern humans that stayed in Africa?!! It's official, these guys are racist nuts!
Hell, even the smart multi-regionalists who speak of humanity being the result of hybridizations with other Homo species at least speak of such hybridization taking place in Africa *first*!!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the while these idiotic so-called "experts" make these assertions, we have evidence such as this from the Blombos caves of Southern Africa:
In essence, there are two opposing viewpoints: 1) A late African origin with 'modern' behaviour rapidly appearing at ~ 50,000 years ago, an event closely linked to behavioural modernity in the European Upper Palaeolithic at about 40,000 years; 2) Modern human behaviour developed in Africa at a much earlier stage, and this development is linked to anatomical modernity - a gradual process that perhaps started more than 200,000 years ago but certainly long before the start of the European Upper Palaeolithic. Most 'late origin' models draw heavily on the European Middle / Upper Palaeolithic transition (about 40,000 years ago) for their construction, but applying eurocentric evidence for 'modern behaviour' to an African context has drawn considerable criticism.
Until recently archaeological evidence for modern human behaviour in Africa has been limited and, consequently, the model for a late European linked development of 'modern behaviour' has, until recently, been widely accepted by many. This is no longer the case.
Evidence emerging from a few recently excavated African sites is beginning to change the picture, for example Sibudu Cave, the Diepkloof cave site and Klasies River. Blombos Cave, located in the southern Cape, South Africa, contains excellently preserved Middle Stone Age (MSA) deposits that date to older than 70,000 years.
But Euronuts like this John Hawks in his mind cries out "NO! NO! This can't be!! Our modern (complex, abstract, thought and behavior, including speech) behavior couldn't have arose from our ancestral modern populations of Africa because they were black jigaboos!! They had to come from white homonids like Neanderthal, if not the Yeti!!!"
LMAOPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ DJ - That's a great impersonation of Rasol.
But here is a test. Modern man entered Europe/West Asia about 45Kya. Neanderthals went extent about 10Kya. The assumption then is both occupied the same area at some point. Tell me wanabe - what was the relationship like? What eveidence is there. . .if any?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: All the while these idiotic so-called "experts" make these assertions, we have evidence such as this from the Blombos caves of Southern Africa:
In essence, there are two opposing viewpoints: 1) A late African origin with 'modern' behaviour rapidly appearing at ~ 50,000 years ago, an event closely linked to behavioural modernity in the European Upper Palaeolithic at about 40,000 years; 2) Modern human behaviour developed in Africa at a much earlier stage, and this development is linked to anatomical modernity - a gradual process that perhaps started more than 200,000 years ago but certainly long before the start of the European Upper Palaeolithic. Most 'late origin' models draw heavily on the European Middle / Upper Palaeolithic transition (about 40,000 years ago) for their construction, but applying eurocentric evidence for 'modern behaviour' to an African context has drawn considerable criticism.
Until recently archaeological evidence for modern human behaviour in Africa has been limited and, consequently, the model for a late European linked development of 'modern behaviour' has, until recently, been widely accepted by many. This is no longer the case.
Evidence emerging from a few recently excavated African sites is beginning to change the picture, for example Sibudu Cave, the Diepkloof cave site and Klasies River. Blombos Cave, located in the southern Cape, South Africa, contains excellently preserved Middle Stone Age (MSA) deposits that date to older than 70,000 years.
But Euronuts like this John Hawks in his mind cries out "NO! NO! This can't be!! Our modern (complex, abstract, thought and behavior, including speech) behavior couldn't have arose from our ancestral modern populations of Africa because they were black jigaboos!! They had to come from white homonids like Neanderthal, if not the Yeti!!!"
LMAO
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: All the while these idiotic so-called "experts" make these assertions, we have evidence such as this from the Blombos caves of Southern Africa:
Actually we have evidence of modern human behavior going back in Africa about 164kya.
-------
Earliest Evidence Of Modern Humans Detected
— Evidence of early humans living on the coast in South Africa, harvesting food from the sea, employing complex bladelet tools and using red pigments in symbolic behavior 164,000 years ago, far earlier than previously documented, is being reported in the journal Nature.
The international team of researchers reporting the findings include Curtis Marean, a paleoanthropologist with the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and three graduate students in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change.
"Our findings show that at 164,000 years ago in coastal South Africa humans expanded their diet to include shellfish and other marine resources, perhaps as a response to harsh environmental conditions," notes Marean, a professor in ASU's School of Human Evolution and Social Change. "This is the earliest dated observation of this behavior."
Further, the researchers report that co-occurring with this diet expansion is a very early use of pigment, likely for symbolic behavior, as well as the use of bladelet stone tool technology, previously dating to 70,000 years ago.
These new findings not only move back the timeline for the evolution of modern humans, they show that lifestyles focused on coastal habitats and resources may have been crucial to the evolution and survival of these early humans.
Searching for beginnings
After decades of debate, paleoanthropologists now agree the genetic and fossil evidence suggests that the modern human species -- Homo sapiens -- evolved in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.
Yet, archaeological sites during that time period are rare in Africa. And, given the enormous expanse of the continent, where in Africa did this crucial step to modern humans occur?
"Archaeologists have had a hard time finding material residues of these earliest modern humans," Marean says. "The world was in a glacial stage 125,000 to 195,000 years ago, and much of Africa was dry to mostly desert; in many areas food would have been difficult to acquire. The paleoenvironmental data indicate there are only five or six places in all of Africa where humans could have survived these harsh conditions."
In seeking the "perfect site" to explore, Marean analyzed ocean currents, climate data, geological formations and other data to pin down a location where he felt sure to find one of these progenitor populations: the Cape of South Africa at Pinnacle Point.
"It was important that we knew exactly where to look and what we were looking for," says Marean. This type of research is expensive and funding is competitive. Marean and the team of scientists who set out to Pinnacle Point to search for this elusive population, did so with the help of a $2.5 million grant from the National Science Foundation's Human Origins: Moving in New Directions (HOMINID) program.
Their findings are reported in the Nature paper "Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene."
The Middle Stone Age, dated between 35,000 and 300,000 years ago, is the technological stage when anatomically modern humans emerged in Africa, along with modern cognitive behavior, says Marean. When, however, within that stage modern human behavior arose is currently debated, he adds.
"This time is beyond the range of radiocarbon dating, yet the dates on the finds published here are more secure than is typical due to the use of two advanced and independent techniques," Marean says.
Uranium series dates were attained by Bar-Matthews on speleothem (the material of stalagmites), and optically stimulated luminescence dates were developed by Jacobs. According to Marean, the latter technique dates the last time that individual grains of sand were exposed to light, and thousands of grains were measured.
Migrating along the coast
"Generally speaking, coastal areas were of no use to early humans -- unless they knew how to use the sea as a food source" says Marean. "For millions of years, our earliest hunter-gatherer relatives only ate terrestrial plants and animals. Shellfish was one of the last additions to the human diet before domesticated plants and animals were introduced."
Before, the earliest evidence for human use of marine resources and coastal habitats was dated about 125,000 years ago. "Our research shows that humans started doing this at least 40,000 years earlier. This could have very well been a response to the extreme environmental conditions they were experiencing," he says.
"We also found what archaeologists call bladelets -- little blades less than 10 millimeters in width, about the size of your little finger," Marean says. "These could be attached to the end of a stick to form a point for a spear, or lined up like barbs on a dart -- which shows they were already using complex compound tools. And, we found evidence that they were using pigments, especially red ochre, in ways that we believe were symbolic," he describes.
Archaeologists view symbolic behavior as one of the clues that modern language may have been present. The earliest bladelet technology was previously dated to 70,000 years ago, near the end of the Middle Stone Age, and the modified pigments are the earliest securely dated and published evidence for pigment use.
"Coastlines generally make great migration routes," Marean says. "Knowing how to exploit the sea for food meant these early humans could now use coastlines as productive home ranges and move long distances."
Results reporting early use of coastlines are especially significant to scientists interested in the migration of humans out of Africa. Physical evidence that this coastal population was practicing modern human behavior is particularly important to geneticists and physical anthropologists seeking to identify the progenitor population for modern humans.
"This evidence shows that Africa, and particularly southern Africa, was precocious in the development of modern human biology and behavior. We believe that on the far southern shore of Africa there was a small population of modern humans who struggled through this glacial period using shellfish and advanced technologies, and symbolism was important to their social relations. It is possible that this population could be the progenitor population for all modern humans," Marean says.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
The most interesting fact about the Neanderthals is that they had larger brains than the incoming Out-of-Africa homosapiens. The Neanderthals also had the ASPM gene ("high IQ gene"). Yet it was the smaller brained, ASPM "deficient" incoming Out-of-Africa migrants that brought advanced culture to the region and pressured out the Neanderthal. Goes to show you that big brains and ASPM do not positively correlate with intelligence. These traits probably correlate with left brain lateralization (sphere of Set/Satan). In fact the very word intelligence means to be informed from within - intuition.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
The most interesting fact about the Neanderthals is that they had larger brains than the incoming Out-of-Africa homosapiens. The Neanderthals also had the ASPM gene ("high IQ gene"). Yet it was the smaller brained, ASPM "deficient" incoming Out-of-Africa migrants that brought advanced culture to the region and pressured out the Neanderthal. Goes to show you that big brains and ASPM do not positively correlate with intelligence. These traits probably correlate with left brain lateralization (sphere of Set/Satan). In fact the very word intelligence means to be informed from within - intuition.
Evergreen Writes:
Of course Western man has known that Blacks have higher interhemispheric connectivity,intuition, etc for some time. In popular media Black women are often portrayed as highly clairvoyant:
Miss Cleo Oda Mae Brown - Movie Ghost Tia Dalma - Movie Pirates of the Caribbean etc., etc.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
^ Is that the movie where the white woman is given ridiculous amounts of makeup to be made to look like a fashion model, where the black [jamaican] woman, the beautiful naomie harris, is *made down* with fake rotten teeth and nasty tatoos?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
^ Is that the movie where the white woman is given ridiculous amounts of makeup to be made to look like a fashion model, where the black [jamaican] woman, the beautiful naomie harris, is *made down* with fake rotten teeth and nasty tatoos?
Evergreen Writes:
Probably.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
The most interesting fact about the Neanderthals is that they had larger brains than the incoming Out-of-Africa homosapiens. The Neanderthals also had the ASPM gene ("high IQ gene"). Yet it was the smaller brained, ASPM "deficient" incoming Out-of-Africa migrants that brought advanced culture to the region and pressured out the Neanderthal. Goes to show you that big brains and ASPM do not positively correlate with intelligence. These traits probably correlate with left brain lateralization (sphere of Set/Satan). In fact the very word intelligence means to be informed from within - intuition.
Evergreen Writes:
Of course Western man has known that Blacks have higher interhemispheric connectivity,intuition, etc for some time. In popular media Black women are often portrayed as highly clairvoyant:
Miss Cleo Oda Mae Brown - Movie Ghost Tia Dalma - Movie Pirates of the Caribbean etc., etc.
Almost forgot about Gloria Foster the oracle from the Matrix.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
The most interesting fact about the Neanderthals is that they had larger brains than the incoming Out-of-Africa homosapiens. The Neanderthals also had the ASPM gene ("high IQ gene"). Yet it was the smaller brained, ASPM "deficient" incoming Out-of-Africa migrants that brought advanced culture to the region and pressured out the Neanderthal. Goes to show you that big brains and ASPM do not positively correlate with intelligence. These traits probably correlate with left brain lateralization (sphere of Set/Satan). In fact the very word intelligence means to be informed from within - intuition.
Evergreen Writes:
Of course Western man has known that Blacks have higher interhemispheric connectivity,intuition, etc for some time. In popular media Black women are often portrayed as highly clairvoyant:
Miss Cleo Oda Mae Brown - Movie Ghost Tia Dalma - Movie Pirates of the Caribbean etc., etc.
Almost forgot about Gloria Foster the oracle from the Matrix.
Evergreen Writes:
Good catch. The ancients Greeks also used Black women as oracles.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]Evergreen Writes:
Of course Western man has known that Blacks have higher interhemispheric connectivity,intuition, etc for some time.
Evergreen Writes:
We don't spend enough time studying Ancient Egypt to learn lessons from the past that can be applied today. We fear pointing out the differences because we have bought into the Eurocentric multiculturalist trick - "We are all the same".
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: They went crazy with the Neanderthal code. Many things were postulated. I knew this was going to happen. The anthropologists posited a mix of humans and Neanderthal saying "we" received our cognitive thinking skills, as well as the ability to use language etc....by mixing with Neanderthal. They had modern humans entering Europe looking like white Arabs. Preposterous. The whole show.
Ian Tattersol and another anthropologist totally disagreed with every single notion though, and said there is not enough evidence.......John Hawks(whom debunked always mentions as visiting Dienekes site often) then says even if it was a little admixture that's all we need to combine with Neanderthal and advance our cognitive thinking skills etc... This is simply a notion for Europeans to be different, and somehow more intelligent(due to admixture with Neanderthal) than the rest of the world.
I called it. I knew Neanderthal would be a next refuge for these idiotic prejudice Euros. Sad.
Anyone else saw it...? Let me know, this needs to be discussed.
My apologies for interjecting into a thread that I have not been following (once I realized that National Geographic was just another White Racist institution, I tend to ignore most of what they have to say on Human history), but the post above caught my eye.
Have you all, gotten so caught-up in the Bull-**** that you have forgotten that Modern Man is three to four times OLDER than Neanderthal????
Obviously National Geographic geared its presentation to the ignorant, but it caught all of you too. It is natural for us to think that since we are the best of the Homo's, then we must be the LAST to have evolved. But we are not, both Neanderthal (about 100,000 to 30,000 years ago) and Cro-Magnon (40,000 –10,000 years ago) evolved after us - that is why I always call them hybrid creatures, Neanderthal = Modern man and maybe remnants of Homo-erectus, Cro-Magnon = for sure, Modern man and Neanderthal. It is also natural for the uninformed to think in terms of a neat process of one species replacing another in abrupt timeframe's, but nature doesn't work that way, there was always periods of overlap, where both the old and the new species existed simultaneously.
But to my point, how could Modern Man inherit traits from his child???
Djehuti wrote: Of course you cannot determine what color skin they had from their fossils, BUT as Rasol has stated several times before they have inhabited Europe and overall lower latitudes with lower UV exposure long before humans left Africa. Their very body structure per Allen's rule is adapted to cold climate via their short stocky builds with short limbs. As such, it is likely they were white if not very light-skinned.
What you never read this??
ScienceDaily (Oct. 26, 2007) — Ancient DNA retrieved from the bones of two Neanderthals suggests that at least some (you know when the racist say "some" - that means the odd Albino) of them had red hair and pale skin, scientists report in the journal Science. The international team says that Neanderthals' pigmentation may even have been as varied as that of modern humans, and that at least 1 percent of Neanderthals were likely redheads.
quote:Have you all, gotten so caught-up in the Bull-**** that you have forgotten that Modern Man is three to four times OLDER than Neanderthal????
^^^Explain this.? You say the most idiotic things sometimes. Modern Human and Neanderthal, scientists believe that these two species diverged from eachother between 200kya and 750kya.
From National Geographic itself.....
Gradual changes in human skull size and shape suggest a split between humans and Neandertals (often spelled Neanderthals) about 300,000 to 400,000 years ago, according to a new study.
quote:Cro-Magnon (40,000 –10,000 years ago) evolved after us - that is why I always call them hybrid creatures, Neanderthal = Modern man and maybe remnants of Homo-erectus, Cro-Magnon = for sure, Modern man and Neanderthal.
Lmao what???? Cro-Magnon was just a cave some of the earliest modern humans in Europe were found. Where do all humans come from? Yes, that's right Africa. Cro-Magnon was a modern human and not a hybrid with Neanderthal. You don't even realize that you just agreed with the fallacious point of the show, which was to postulate Europeans mix with Neanderthal, which is not true.
quote:Neanderthal = Modern man and maybe remnants of Homo-erectus
But to my point, how could Modern Man inherit traits from his child???
Lol Neanderthal evolved from homo erectus I believe, and no Neanderthal was not a modern human. Please explain how Neanderthal is the child of modern humans?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Knowledge, you waste your time. You know very well that Mike is scientifically illiterate so anything he says on the topic of science or history in regards to anthropology is well bulls**t...
To Evergreen: I'm sorry but alot of the stuff you you're speaking of sounds pseudo-scientific and I dare say 'new age' like with this talk of left-hemisphere associated with satan or set and higher clairvoyance in blacks etc. I mean I agree with you that the multiculturalist phenom that "we're all the same" is of course not entirely true, but where is the evidence for your claim of such differences??
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Have you all, gotten so caught-up in the Bull-**** that you have forgotten that Modern Man is three to four times OLDER than Neanderthal????
^^^Explain this.? You say the most idiotic things sometimes. Modern Human and Neanderthal, scientists believe that these two species diverged from eachother between 200kya and 750kya.
From National Geographic itself.....
Gradual changes in human skull size and shape suggest a split between humans and Neandertals (often spelled Neanderthals) about 300,000 to 400,000 years ago, according to a new study.
Knowledgeiskey718: You are an ignorant little piece of ****, instead of referring to my posts as idiotic, why not try and learn something.
My source is Encyclopedia Britannica circa 2004. Aside from the nonsense from NG, what is you source???
And where the hell did you get the notion that Modern Human and Neanderthal diverged from each other??? NG again?? Try another source - ditz.
BTW - there seem to be the mindset that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon were EUROPEAN creatures - they were NOT. They were North African and Middle-eastern creatures who migrated to EUROPE and ASIA.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
To Evergreen: I'm sorry but alot of the stuff you you're speaking of sounds pseudo-scientific and I dare say 'new age' like with this talk of left-hemisphere associated with satan or set and higher clairvoyance in blacks etc......where is the evidence for your claim of such differences??
Evergreen Writes:
My claim was more nuanced than your oversimplification. Please tell me which of the points I make below are in dispute:
1. Ancient Egyptians associated Eurasians with Set? 2. The ancient Egyptian Set evolved into the modern Satan of the bible? 3. Eurasians trend toward left-brain lateralization? 4. Blacks (African and Asian) trend toward right-brain lateralization or brain symmetry? 5. Higher clairvoyance is positively correlated with right-brain lateralization or brain symmetry?
I look forward to your detailed response and supporting data.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And where the hell did you get the notion that Modern Human and Neanderthal diverged from each other??? NG again?? Try another source - ditz.
Actually it's common knowledge and I was just showing you that even NG says it. Dunce, tell me Encyclopedia Britannica is better than NG, how?
Nice try, but well no.... Homo Erectus walked out of Africa and while in Europe evolved into Neanderthal. That's what is meant when they say their ancestors diverged. Not that Neanderthal walked out of Africa as is. Dunce.
COMPARISON OF MODERN HUMAN AND NEANDERTHAL DNA Igor V. Ovchinnikov1,2,3, Anders Götherström4, Galina P. Romanova5, Vitaliy M. Kharitonov6, Kerstin Lidén4, William Goodwin1 1 Human Identification Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, UK 2 Institute of Gerontology, Moscow, Russia 3 Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032 USA 4 Archaeological Research Laboratory, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 5 Institute of Archaeology, Moscow 117036, Russia 6 Institute and Museum of Anthropology, Moscow State University, Moscow 103009, Russia
Neanderthals occupied large areas of Eurasia from about 200,000 years ago until their relatively rapid replacement by modern humans around 28,000-30,000 years ago. Many anthropologists believe that modern humans originated in Africa and entered Europe around 40,000 years ago [1]. The replacement theory hypothesizes that modern humans arriving from Africa out competed the Neanderthals, causing their numbers to reduce and for them eventually to become extinct. Another possibility is that the Neanderthals and modern humans interbred to produce a hybrid population that in time became the modern Europeans, in which case the Neanderthals were absorbed rather than replaced. Since the development of molecular biology techniques a number of studies have been carried out using both modern and ancient DNA, in particular using the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in an attempt to address the replacement verses absorption theories. Studies of modern European mtDNA found that the differences in mtDNA were very small which indicated that there was no archaic Neanderthal DNA in the current European mtDNA pool [2] and that all the mtDNA within the European pool had a relatively recent common origin. Direct evidence that the Neanderthals did not contribute to mtDNA gene pool of modern humans came when a study described the retrieval of DNA from the Neanderthal, recovered from Feldhofer Cave in the Neander Valley in western Germany [3]. These conclusions were based on the molecular analysis of a single specimen that left some people doubting the source of the DNA and gave no information on the levels of diversity within the Neanderthal gene pool; therefore the analysis of additional samples was highly desirable. Excavations between 1987-1997 of the Mezmaiskaya Cave, which is located within the northern Caucasus in southern Russia 1,310 m above sea level revealed the remains of a Neanderthal infant, aged between a fetus of seven months and a new born of 2 months [4]. Small pieces of bone fragments were used to analyze the preservation of the macromolecules within the sample in order to determine the level of diagenetic modification of fossil bones of the Mezmaiskaya infant before using more of the bone material to isolate DNA. The relatively high level of preserved collagen-type debris was within the values recovered from previously analysed prehistoric samples that had displayed good preservation [5]. The high collagen yield made it possible to radiocarbon date, by accelerator dating in the Uppsala laboratory, the Neanderthal infant to 29,195 ± 965 years B.P. (before present) [5]. Therefore, the remains belonged to one of the latest Neanderthals found so far from a Neanderthal refuge located on the eastern most edge of Europe in the Caucasus. After the sample had been shown to be well preserved, mtDNA analysis was undertaken on the rib sample. Two sections of the rib were independently analyzed in two separate laboratories. A total 345 bp of hypervariable region I (HVRI) of mtDNA was determined from two overlapping PCR fragments with lengths of 232 and 256 bp. Forty PCR amplification cycles produced sufficient product to enable both direct DNA sequencing and also cloning of PCR fragments followed by DNA sequencing. The preservation of 256 bp long DNA fragments in the bone demonstrated a positive correlation with the collagen content and the skeletal morphology [5]. The Neanderthal DNA sequences were compared to the modern human mtDNA. The Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal differed to the Cambridge reference sequence [6] by 22 substitutions and one insertion; in comparison with the Feldhofer Neanderthal there were 12 substitutions. There was therefore a 3.48% divergence between the two Neanderthals from geographically distant populations separated geographically by over 2,500 km and probably by thousands of years in time [5]. Further comparisons were undertaken with the Neanderthal DNA and modern human DNA. The differences between the Neanderthal and 300 Caucasians, 300 east Asians and 300 sub Saharan Africans were calculated to be 25.45 ± 3.27, 23.27 ± 4.06 and 23.09 ± 2.86, respectively. This demonstrated that the Neanderthals were no more related to any one of the modern racial groups [5]. Phylogenetic analysis arranged the data to show the evolutionary relationship of the different DNA sequences by was performed. When the Neanderthal DNA was compared to 5,846 modern human DNA sequences it was sufficiently different to be considered a different group. This indicates that the two Neanderthal sequences are closely related to each other and that the 5,846 modern human DNA sequences are closely related to each other but that the Neanderthal mtDNA is in a different cluster than all modern human sequences. Together these analyses of Neanderthal DNA provide support for the hypothesis of no or a very low gene flow between the Neanderthals and modern humans and points to the Neanderthals existence as a separate branch of hominid evolution [5]. Using the mtDNA as a molecular clock it was possible to estimate firstly the age of the most recent common ancestor of the mtDNA of the eastern and western Neanderthals to be from 151,000 to 352,000 years. This “molecular time” coincides with the time of emergence of the Neanderthal lineage in the palaeontological records. Secondly, the divergence of modern human and Neanderthal mtDNA was estimated to be between 365,000 and 853,000 years ago when the common ancestor of the Neanderthals and modern humans lived [5]. The excellent preservation of this specimen leads to the potential of analyzing the entire Neanderthal mitochondrial genome and fragments of nuclear Neanderthal DNA and also suggested that some other Neanderthal samples may be amenable to molecular analyses. This has been born out with the successful analysis of a third Neanderthal found in Croatia [7].
quote:BTW - there seem to be the mindset that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon were EUROPEAN creatures - they were NOT. They were North African and Middle-eastern creatures who migrated to EUROPE and ASIA.
Are you saying Neanderthal walked Out of Africa looking as he did? If so provide sources please.
Cro Magnon, like I said was a cave where the Earliest modern humans were found in Europe. Cro-Magnon is not a name of a separate species, so of course Early European modern humans found in Cro-Magnon cave, came from Africa, and still resembled Africans as well, this is explained throughout this whole entire site, you dunce.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowledgeiskey718: What you posted above was so stupid that I just had to see where you would get such stupid ideas. My first stop was Wiki – surprise, surprise, there it was.
From Wiki:
The Neanderthal species or Neandertal, are paleoanthropological specimens classified as Pleistocene species of the Homo genus (Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) which inhabited Europe and parts of western and central Asia. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago. Proto-Neanderthal traits are occasionally grouped to another cladistic 'species', Homo heidelbergensis, or a migrant form, Homo rhodesiensis. By 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics had appeared.
These characteristics then disappeared in Asia by 50,000 years ago and in Europe by 30,000 years ago. The youngest Neanderthal finds include Hyaena Den (UK), considered older than 30,000 years ago, while the Vindija (Croatia) Neanderthals have been re-dated to between 32,000 and 33,000 years ago. No definite specimens younger than 30,000 years ago have been found. Modern human skeletal remains with 'Neanderthal traits' were found in Lagar Velho (Portugal), dated to 24,500 years ago and interpreted as indications of extensively admixed populations.
But to their credit, this time it wasn’t their fault, it was yours. If you would re-read the article, paying close attention to the part that I have hi-lighted, you might learn something. BTW – the rest of the Wiki article is pretty much the usual misinformed Wiki stuff.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing you posted above is in the PDF I posted. You are seriously retarded. Why would you go around looking when I already provided you with the link to the PDF? Dunce.
COMPARISON OF MODERN HUMAN AND NEANDERTHAL DNA Igor V. Ovchinnikov1,2,3, Anders Götherström4, Galina P. Romanova5, Vitaliy M. Kharitonov6, Kerstin Lidén4, William Goodwin1 1 Human Identification Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, UK 2 Institute of Gerontology, Moscow, Russia 3 Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032 USA 4 Archaeological Research Laboratory, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 5 Institute of Archaeology, Moscow 117036, Russia 6 Institute and Museum of Anthropology, Moscow State University, Moscow 103009, Russia
Using the mtDNA as a molecular clock it was possible to estimate firstly the age of the most recent common ancestor of the mtDNA of the eastern and western Neanderthals to be from 151,000 to 352,000 years. This “molecular time” coincides with the time of emergence of the Neanderthal lineage in the palaeontological records. Secondly, the divergence of modern human and Neanderthal mtDNA was estimated to be between 365,000 and 853,000 years ago when the common ancestor of the Neanderthals and modern humans lived [5].
You call this Wikipedia? Dunce.... Try again
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Wiki uses the same material - which is based on shaky DNA studies: which have been found, and admitted to be, highly speculative. Note below:
You defend National Geographic; but yet other parts of the study contradict what NG is teaching you.
A recent statistical simulation found either no or insignificant admixing between modern humans and Neanderthals. Another mtDNA analysis showed no evidence for Neanderthal contributions to the gene pool of modern humans.
[B]But then there is this: For some time, professionals debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Genetic statistical calculation (2006 results) suggests at least 5% of the modern human gene pool can be attributed to ancient admixture, with the European contribution being from the Neanderthal - see below. Some morphological studies support that Homo neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies. Some suggest inherited admixture. Others, for example University of Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction" and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens. Homo sapiens mtDNA from Australia (Mungo Man 40ky ) is also not found in recent human genomic pool and mtDNA sequences for temporally comparative African specimens are not yet available.
Could it be that Europeans are NOT normal Humans like us??
How about this!
Neanderthal DNA are some 99.5 percent to nearly 99.9 percent identical.
On November 16, 2006, Science Daily published an interview that suggested that Neanderthals and ancient humans probably did not interbreed. Edward M. Rubin, director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Joint Genome Institute (JGI), sequenced a fraction (0.00002) of genomic nuclear DNA (nDNA) from a 38,000-year-old Vindia Neanderthal femur bone. They calculated the common ancestor to be about 353,000 years ago, and a complete separation of the ancestors of the species about 188,000 years ago. Their results show the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5% identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and despite the two species having coexisted in the same geographic region for thousands of years, Rubin and his team did not find any evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two. Rubin said, “While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.”
Or this
Chimps and Man
Genetic analysis suggest that humans and chimps diverged four to eight million years ago; and that at least 98 percent of the human and chimpanzee genomes are identical. Chimpanzees are classified taxonomically as a single species, Pan troglodytes. (The so-called pygmy chimpanzee, or bonobo, is a distinct and separate species, P. paniscus.) Three subspecies of P. troglodytes have traditionally been recognized: the tschego, or Central African chimpanzee (P. t. troglodytes), also known as the common chimpanzee in continental Europe; the West African, or masked, chimpanzee, known as the common chimpanzee in Great Britain; and the East African, or long-haired, chimpanzee (P. t. schweinfurthii). A fourth subspecies, the Nigerian chimpanzee (P. t. vellerosus), has also been proposed.
Knowledgeiskey718 - So many contradictions - Is your little pea brain ready to pop yet? Next time, don't use "Common knowledge" in a scientific discussion, try learning something instead!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^To the Black people reading this thread - do you see the Bull Sh1t White people tell themselves (and you) to explain their existence?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowledgeiskey718 wrote - Dunce, tell me Encyclopedia Britannica is better than NG, how?
You pissed-me-off, so one last Kick; Encyclopedia Britannica "used" to be a relatively neutral clearing house for information - the racist have since taken over. Therefore their articles on Human Evolution were from the finest scientists. National Geographic Society on the other hand, was more concerned with the natural world. Their foray into Human Evolution is explained below. They are trying to catch-up, and Judging from the crap that they are putting out, they have a long way to go.
The Human Origins Project, a joint initiative of the National Geographic Society and the Turkana Basin Institute, will utilize cutting-edge technology to become the largest and most informative multilingual resource available on the subject of human evolution.
Over the past 35 years, the Koobi Fora region in northern Kenya’s Turkana Basin has yielded a wealth of fossil material that has revealed a great deal of information about human history and origins. Some 16,000 fossils, including 350 hominid specimens, have been collected from the basin. The findings help scientists understand hominid behavior like tool use, piece together basic hominid lineages, and understand hominid diversity.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:^^^Wiki uses the same material - which is based on shaky DNA studies: which have been found, and admitted to be, highly speculative. Note below:
Nope Wikipedia did not use the study I presented, you dunce. Stop the nonsense
quote: Knowledgeiskey718: What you posted above was so stupid that I just had to see where you would get such stupid ideas. My first stop was Wiki – surprise, surprise, there it was.
Care to explain where in Wikipedia you found the study I posted?
quote: You defend National Geographic; but yet other parts of the study contradict what NG is teaching you.
When did I defend National Geographic? This thread is about National Geographic you dunce, in which I DISAGREE with the whole show.
I asked you what makes E.Britannica better than National Geographic?
quote: A recent statistical simulation found either no or insignificant admixing between modern humans and Neanderthals. Another mtDNA analysis showed no evidence for Neanderthal contributions to the gene pool of modern humans.
But then there is this: For some time, professionals debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Genetic statistical calculation (2006 results) suggests at least 5% of the modern human gene pool can be attributed to ancient admixture, with the European contribution being from the Neanderthal - see below. Some morphological studies support that Homo neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies. Some suggest inherited admixture. Others, for example University of Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction" and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens. Homo sapiens mtDNA from Australia (Mungo Man 40ky ) is also not found in recent human genomic pool and mtDNA sequences for temporally comparative African specimens are not yet available.
Well...and then there is real facts(that you know nothing about) and not Euro-centric drivel in desperate attempts to be admixed with Neanderthal.
[b]Ian Tattersall: "I would certainly not deny that some "hanky panky" was going on, what obviously did not happen, was any major biologically significant exchange of genes"
"Interbreeding must have been possible, atleast on some level, closer related species of primates and other mammals interbreed on occasion, so I don't see why Neanderthal and modern humans wouldn't, but the EVIDENCE for it, is jut not there --- Katerina Havarti, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
quote:Could it be that Europeans are NOT normal Humans like us??
Could it be your brain doesn't function like normal humans? Lol.
Further comparisons were undertaken with the Neanderthal DNA and modern human DNA. The differences between the Neanderthal and 300 Caucasians, 300 east Asians and 300 sub Saharan Africans were calculated to be 25.45 ± 3.27, 23.27 ± 4.06 and 23.09 ± 2.86, respectively. This demonstrated that the Neanderthals were no more related to any one of the modern racial groups [5]. Phylogenetic analysis arranged the data to show the evolutionary relationship of the different DNA sequences by was performed. When the Neanderthal DNA was compared to 5,846 modern human DNA sequences it was sufficiently different to be considered a different group. This indicates that the two Neanderthal sequences are closely related to each other and that the 5,846 modern human DNA sequences are closely related to each other but that the Neanderthal mtDNA is in a different cluster than all modern human sequences.
quote:Knowledgeiskey718 - So many contradictions - Is your little pea brain ready to pop yet? Next time, don't use "Common knowledge" in a scientific discussion, try learning something instead!
It's common SCIENTIFIC knowledge, dunce! Something which boggles your brain.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just demonstrated that there were misinformed opinions - like yours - all over the place, so how can it be common SCIENTIFIC or ANY kind of knowledge?? YOU boggle my brain.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I just demonstrated that there were misinformed opinions - like yours - all over the place, so how can it be common SCIENTIFIC or ANY kind of knowledge?? YOU boggle my brain.
You're obviously the only one misinformed. You obviously thought I was using Wiki.
Opinions? What do you find opinionated and explain why about the following GENETIC study?
COMPARISON OF MODERN HUMAN AND NEANDERTHAL DNA Igor V. Ovchinnikov1,2,3, Anders Götherström4, Galina P. Romanova5, Vitaliy M. Kharitonov6, Kerstin Lidén4, William Goodwin1 1 Human Identification Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, UK 2 Institute of Gerontology, Moscow, Russia 3 Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032 USA 4 Archaeological Research Laboratory, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 5 Institute of Archaeology, Moscow 117036, Russia 6 Institute and Museum of Anthropology, Moscow State University, Moscow 103009, Russia
Further comparisons were undertaken with the Neanderthal DNA and modern human DNA. The differences between the Neanderthal and 300 Caucasians, 300 east Asians and 300 sub Saharan Africans were calculated to be 25.45 ± 3.27, 23.27 ± 4.06 and 23.09 ± 2.86, respectively. This demonstrated that the Neanderthals were no more related to any one of the modern racial groups [5]. Phylogenetic analysis arranged the data to show the evolutionary relationship of the different DNA sequences by was performed. When the Neanderthal DNA was compared to 5,846 modern human DNA sequences it was sufficiently different to be considered a different group. This indicates that the two Neanderthal sequences are closely related to each other and that the 5,846 modern human DNA sequences are closely related to each other but that the Neanderthal mtDNA is in a different cluster than all modern human sequences.
Using the mtDNA as a molecular clock it was possible to estimate firstly the age of the most recent common ancestor of the mtDNA of the eastern and western Neanderthals to be from 151,000 to 352,000 years. This “molecular time” coincides with the time of emergence of the Neanderthal lineage in the palaeontological records. Secondly, the divergence of modern human and Neanderthal mtDNA was estimated to be between 365,000 and 853,000 years ago when the common ancestor of the Neanderthals and modern humans lived [5].Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
So what exactly do they mean?! That *all* human populations and not just Europeans have Neanderthal ancestry?? Because obviously Europeans aren't the only humans to possess cognitive thinking skills and language! LMAO
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's official, these guys are racist nuts!
Printer-friendly view of this topic