quote: Stretches of chromosomes inherited from Neandertals also carried ancient alleles, or mutations, found in all the Africans they studied, including the Yoruba, Esan, and Mende peoples.
quote: The most parsimonious explanation is that these alleles represent the ancestral human condition, inherited by both Neandertals and modern humans in Africa from their common ancestor, Capra says.
Yet
quote: In Eurasians these alleles are only found next to Neandertal genes, suggesting all this DNA was inherited at the same time, when the ancestors of today’s Eurasians mated with Neandertals roughly 50,000 years ago.
And whats with this dog whistle?
quote: The most parsimonious explanation is that these alleles
Prof Svante Pääbo, at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, who led the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome in 2010 and has championed the idea that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, said he was surprised that Manica's work had been published, since his original paper had admitted a role for substructuring in Africa in the sharing of DNA between humans and Neanderthals. "But we regard this as a less parsimonious explanation," he said.
posted
I also wondered if Tony Capra is ...Capra. Cited on ESR?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is really alarming that there seems to be a concentrated effort by 90% of the researchers to isolate SSA …and limit it to West Africa/YRI etc. These papers are so overtly racist I am bewildered. “Sub-Saharan this and sub-saharan that”…...over and over and over again. And when we look closely at the paper SSA IS defined as ONLY West Africa!! The other noticeable thing is There are a few organizations spear heading and publishing such papers. 1. Max Planck lead by Paabo, 2. Reich Labs led by David Reich 3. UPenn led by various researchers most notable Tishkoff
As I said. Know the players. 4W’s. Who the author is, What is their premise, When was it written, Where the samples were taken. Were the correct amount of samples taken from the most logical population .
First look at the author and the University or Organization they are affiliated with. Smaller independent researchers are more objective
So back to Paabo. There was never any “plugging” of AMH by Neanderthals, being a gay he may fantasize about it….. Lol!. It is all a myth. The most parsimonious is, yes Ann Gibson is correct. AMH and Neanderthal have the same ancestors. And as other researchers have demonstrated the mutation rate OOA humans was much slower than humans left back in Africa(ie less diversity outside Africa and with increasing distance from Africa). That is why Africans do carry “Neanderthal” ancestry but it is harder to detect than in East Asians. That is why EEF/Basal Eurasians/Natufians ….and Africans carry negligible “Neanderthal” AIM, they are the same people. It is because of substructure that existed within Africa before the first OOA. And as Lazaridis pointed out. EEF diluted Neanderthal ancestry in Europeans that is why they carry less than East Asians.
Max Planck and Paabo know this …but citing that fact do not fit their agenda. Understand….it is an agenda. They steadfastly is on a mission to alienating SSA and West Africans/Diasporans/AFRAMS in particular. Not sure what all the hate is about …is it that “hateful’ gene at play again? Or does it go back to this…..denial that SSA was responsible for leading the world into civilization?
Black skin ..white skulls
Quote: “to succinctly chronicle how AE and the Children of Ham were to be removed from the blackness which was theirs before Napoleon's expedition and the invention of anthropology. “
If Capra quoted…he may be correct. --- quote: The most parsimonious explanation is that these alleles represent the ancestral human condition, inherited by both Neandertals and modern humans in Africa from their common ancestor, Capra says. ---
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny cuz I was trying to find the Neanderthal %'s among ancient Africans for you @42Tribes but I quickly realized that Africans among themselves and ancients are a whole new ball game. I'm perplexed at how much the percentages vary based on who I use to represent a 100% human. And come to think of it.. Multiple teams used different populations to gauge NEanderthal proportions...
I don't want to go on a rant about how unscientific these previous publications were. But it's bad.
A couple of examples
For instance, unmixed ancient South African HGs cover almost 40% of Ust Ishm the 45+kya Siberian HG neanderthal.... How? when they have no evidence of introgression
West Africans lead by the Mende share unique alleles with both Denisovans and Neanderthals. The overlap that they have with Archaics is clearly distinct from that of introgression in Eurasians, (with possibly the exception of Hotu).
Based on the fact that Nilotes are supposedly the terminal pure African population. You'd think that they can give proper estimates of Introgression as an outgroup, being they lack Archaic introgression and are drifted towards Eurasians, but what you'd find is that Eurasian neanderthal % are reduced and west Africans Mbuti and San HGs have their neanderthal proportions inflated.
There's way more to consider when Addressing neanderthal percentages than f4 stat's with a random African Outgroup. A few papers create a pooled African Sample but exclude Nilotes when trying to find Neanderthal proportions... Why? IDK? but if we really want to know how much Neanderthal is due to actual introgression after Eurasians left Africa then we should use them...
posted
You know ElMaestro…you are like those 25year old on the beaches who bends over in front of me to take off her flip-flops then turns around and looks down at me and smiles. WT….
You are such a tease!!!!! But great work brotha. Who is Nilotes and Mende in you sample set? Hadza and Gambians?
Anyways Quote: “unmixed ancient South African HGs cover almost 40% of Ust Ishm the 45+kya Siberian HG Neanderthal”
West Africans lead by the Mende share unique alleles with both Denisovans and Neanderthals. The overlap that they have with Archaics is clearly distinct from that of introgression in Eurasians, (with possibly the exception of Hotu).”
“Nilotes are supposedly the terminal pure African population. You'd think that they can give proper estimates of Introgression as an outgroup, being they lack Archaic introgression and are drifted towards Eurasians”
But like I said, Nilotes change things.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, If the analysis you are running is what it is…brotha you have busted this thing wide open!!! More power to you. Others should follow suite. I knew what they were publishing made absolutely no sense even their dataset was contradictory but the problem was running independent analysis to confirm their BS and lies. Well you may be Sage 2.0 . Keep em coming.
I myself am trying my hands at this. Still trying to figure how to trim and do alignments.
Pretty soon no one will believe their lies. They will be talking to themselves and lying to themselves ……
May be I should just stick to ONE woman….(have more time on my hands….”I got a life”)…He! He! He! Messing with you brother.
---
Data man! data!
“West Africans lead by the Mende share unique alleles with both Denisovans and Neanderthals. The overlap that they have with Archaics is clearly distinct from that of introgression in Eurasians, (with possibly the exception of Hotu).”
1. Archaic West African-Iwo Eleru=Neanderthal=Denisovan 2. xxx Malawi? =Hora=Luxmanda=Sardinia=EEF
edit: Hotu Iran...
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
UNDERSTAND THE PLAYERS AND WHAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH!! IT IS NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD!! They all work for and is associated with Max-Plank. Their agenda? Revise and up keep the agenda from the 1800’s. Some of you may recognizes the key players.
Max-Planck/Reich Labs/UPenn
---------------------- Max Planck Harvard Research Center for the Archaeoscience of the Ancient Mediterranean From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The creation of the Max Planck Harvard Research Center for the Archaeoscience of the Ancient Mediterranean (MHAAM) was announced in February 2017 at Harvard University. It was inaugurated with a workshop and a signing ceremony at Harvard University on October 10, 2017, when the president of the Max Planck Society, Martin Stratmann, and Harvard's vice-provost for international affairs signed a five-year agreement.[1] [2][3][4]
The center is a collaboration between the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (MPISHH) and the Initiative for the Science of the Human Past at Harvard (SoHP).[5] The center's co-directors are Johannes Krause (MPISHH) and Michael McCormick (History Department, Harvard University and chair SoHP);David Reich (Department of Genetics, Harvard University), and Philipp Stockhammer (MPISHH and LMU Munich) serve as deputy directors.
Its initial research projects focus on genetic and other biomolecular archaeological evidence for migrations in the ancient Mediterranean, and the genetics and historical impact of ancient pathogens.[6] [7] ------------------
Alumni George Ayodo graduate student 2005-7; now an Assistant Professor, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga of science and technology, Kenya Kasia Bryc post-doc 2010-4; now a Staff Scientist at 23andMe Jennifer Caswell undergraduate 2004-6; now a post-doc in breast cancer research at Stanford Hua Chen post-doc 2008-11; now a professor at Beijing Institute of Genomics, Chinese Academy of Sciences Rahul Deo post-doc 2005-7; now an Assistant Professor at UCSF Qiaomei Fu post-doc 2014-6; now Group Leader at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), Beijing, China Alon Keinan post-doc 2005-9; now an Associate Professor at Cornell Iain Mathieson post-doc 2014-7; now an Assistant Professor at University of Pennsylvania Priya Moorjani graduate student 2009-13; now an Assistant Professor at UC Berkeley Susanne Nordenfelt technician 2012-3; now medical student at Lund University in Sweden Elle Palkopoulou post-doc 2015-8; now a Head of Bovine TB Genotyping at the Animal and Plant Health Agency in the UK Joe Pickrell post-doc 2011-13; now Group Leader and Core Member at New York Genome Center Alkes Price post-doc 2005-8; now Professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Sriram Sankararaman post-doc 2011-6; now an Assistant Professor at University of California, Los Angeles Pontus Skoglund post-doc 2014-7; now a Group Leader at the Francis Crick Institute James Sun graduate student 2008-12; now Director of Biomarker and Diagnostics Development at Foundation Medicine Chuan-Chao Wang post-doc 2015-7; now an Associate Professor and Principal Investigator of the Biological Anthropology Lab, Department of Anthropology and Ethnology, Xiamen University. Amy Williams post-doc 2009-13; now an Assistant Professor at Cornell University Fuli Yu post-doc 2005-7; now an Assistant Professor at Baylor College of Medicine
David Reich Nick Patterson Nick Patterson Iosif Lazaridis Research Associate
Mark Lipson Postdoctoral Fellow Vagheesh Narasimhan Postdoctoral Fellow
Inigo Olalde Postdoctoral Fellow Molly Schumer Postdoctoral Fellow Zhao Zhang Staff Scientist Jonas Oppenheimer Ancient DNA Technician
Kristin Stewardson Ancient DNA Technician Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg Scientific Associate
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Again, If the analysis you are running is what it is…brotha you have busted this thing
Well you may be Sage 2.0 . Keep em coming.
I myself am trying my hands at this. Still trying to figure how to trim and do alignments.
Nah, he ain't no Sage.nuthin He the Master by his own rights.
I am pleased we have someone much better equipped than me to do to raw data analysis interpretation vetting. EM's advance is he can go beyond vetting others' conclusions to precision testing questions of his own design.
Had I the resources I'd develop a(n) S statistic(s) to determine Natufian-Tafotalt-otherAfrican relationships using the following f stats
f4(Outgroup, TestPop; PopA, PopB) where a negative f4 means Test is closer to A a positive f4 means Test is closer to B
Even without an S stat, using any two sets of f4 results we can still plots points on a graph.
BTW "One of the first questions we were interested in was what happened when modern humans came out of Africa and met Neanderthals? Did ones mix with them or not?
We found to my big surprise, there was slightly more similarity between the genomes of people in Europe to the Neanderthal genome than between people in Africa and the Neanderthal genome.
posted
So Svante doesn’t just have a gay African American name he really is gay?
It seems like the Neil Degrasse Tyson’s of genetics are caught in a circular Eurocentric lie. They ignored basal ‘European’ haplogroups in Africans and west Asians. To explain why human diversity runs parallel to archaic ancestry….
they created the mythic basal Eurasian. Mythic because they already parsimoniously stated that all these basal Africans are back migrants. So now it’s just a show. Middle finger to science and evidence off jomp. They will search for these god damn basal Eurasians that are right in front of our face until something breaks the circle.
But it’s a layer deeper than that. After Cambridge did their simulation to demonstrate that this these archaic variants are increased percentages through bottlenecks Svante broke out his maths and produced…
quote: that the last gene flow from Neandertals (or their relatives) into Europeans likely occurred 37,000-86,000 years before the present (BP), and most likely 47,000-65,000 years ago.
Then the parsimonious came with…
quote: A recent analysis of ancient DNA from an eastern Neanderthal suggests that introgression of Moderns into Neanderthal populations had occurred much earlier, roughly 100,000 BP; i.e., the archaeologically established period of overlap seems to have been preceded by earlier encounters between the two species30, 31. This should not come as a surprise: Moderns’ remains are found in the Levant as early as 120,000 BP, and the evidence suggests plausible contemporaneous overlap between the two species’ ranges in the Levant for tens of thousands of years, prior to the Moderns’ expansion into Europe
Even if you ignore all the basal R and H in Africa or the basal N, M, etc the two most represented Y&X lineages of Europe are only 20K years old and that’s being liberal. Seems like a flawed query. Eurasians were still Africans or barely removed during the time frame. On the other hand they concede that Africans possess ‘Neanderthal’ gene flow through a common ancestor. How can you discern anything with those parameters.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neanderthal breeding idea doubted By Jonathan Ball
BBC News
Similarities between the DNA of modern people and Neanderthals are more likely to have arisen from shared ancestry than interbreeding, a study reports.
That is according to research carried out at the University of Cambridge and published this week in PNAS journal.
Europeans have “slightly “ more SHARED genes to Neanderthal…… than African…. and Natufians …..and Basal Eurasians. As Ann Gibson, Guido Babujani and others have explained. Ancient Humans and Neanderthals have the same mommy and daddy. The ancient humans that left Africa >60,000ya IS expected to have more similarity to Neanderthal because of their less diversity. Europeans carry less “Neanderthal” DNA because they carry more recent African ancestry ie Basal Eurasian. As Lazaridis explained. BE diluted the Neanderthal “ancestry” in Europeans compared to East Asians.
--------------------- Re-quote BTW "One of the first questions we were interested in was what happened when modern humans came out of Africa and met Neanderthals? Did ones mix with them or not?
We found to my big surprise, there was slightly more shared genes between the genomes of people in Europe to the Neanderthal genome than between people in Africa and the Neanderthal genome.
And even more surprising at that time is that we actually found the same sort of excessive similarity when we looked at people in Asia.
I was really biased when we started looking at this thinking there would be no contribution but the data sort of forced us to to see that we were wrong in our sympathies."
- Svante Pääbo -
Like you Paabo was biased. I am not biased Like you sign, he's Deming determined. Yes! Unlike you he prefers data to feelings. Nope!
Per Deming, all you have is opinion since you refuse to accept the data.
No? no!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I came across this recently. At first I started laughing out loud then… I was alarmed. Are they really trying to put the origin of humanity OUTSIDE Africa? 25 years from now will we be saying that AMH originated in Asia? Wow!!!
--If you repeat a lie often enough they will believe it….If you say Neanderthal admixed with HSS often enough people will believe it regardless of the data - Joseph Goebbels
A phylogenetic view of the Out of Asia/Eurasia and Out of Africa hypotheses in the light of recent molecular and palaeontological finds. Árnason Ú1. Author information
Abstract The substantiality of the Out of Africa hypothesis was addressed in the light of recent genomic analysis of extant humans (Homo sapiens sapiens, Hss) and progress in Neanderthal palaeontology. The examination lent no support to the commonly assumed Out of Africa scenario but favoured instead a Eurasian divergence between Neanderthals and Hss (the Askur/Embla hypothesis) and an Out of Asia/Eurasia hypothesis according to which all other parts of the world were colonized by Hss migrations from Asia. The examination suggested furthermore that the ancestors of extant KhoeSan and Mbuti composed the first Hss dispersal(s) into Africa and that the ancestors of Yoruba made up a later wave into the same continent. The conclusions constitute a change in paradigm for the study of human evolution.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I missing something? What is the top post trying to communicate? The title says nothing about the topic and the top post also says nothing about the topic (at least, not that I can see). Then gramps comes in and starts his usual post flurry when the OP is not clear as to what the topic is. Are y'all even on the same page? Lol. Y'all funny. Or maybe it's me and I'm slow?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, I do some something in the quotes in the OP that seems bogus on the part of the researchers, but that part is not highlighted/commented on. Hence, my confusion.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Clarity aside, the article 42tribes posted is actually a good catch in terms of highlighting what we talk about many times on ES. It shows that a lot of times when it comes to African DNA, geneticists' interpretations of their data are really not informed by any science but by their own ignorance, whims and biases. For instance, the author is ascribing some perceived undesirable traits (she calls them a 'burden') in non-Africans to ancient African genes. She cites wider waists as an example of this.
quote:When Neandertals mated with modern humans, they shared more than an intimate moment and their own DNA. They also gave back thousands of ancient African gene variants that Eurasians had lost when their ancestors swept out of Africa in small bands, perhaps 60,000 to 80,000 years ago. Restored to their lineage, this diversity may have been a genetic gift to Eurasian ancestors as they spread around the world. Today, however, some of these African variants are a burden: They seem to boost the risk of becoming addicted to nicotine and having wider waistlines.
She says this phenotype is not particularly Neanderthal, since Neanderthals only passed it down to non-Africans after inheriting it from ancient Africans who she claims are the ultimate source of these genes. But wider waists are a cold adaptation, not particularly linked to Africans. And yes, Neanderthals have the widest waists among humans AFAIK, not ancient Africans. There are some exceptions like Lucy (see below), but that was millions of years ago, closer to the chimp-human ancestor. In more recent times (after 1my ago) humans generally had narrow waists, with Neanderthals being the only exception AFAIK. See Turkana Boy (KNM-WT 15000) in the book page below; he clearly doesn't have a wide waist, compared to Neanderthals. Contrary to what the article says, any inherited genes that result in this phenotype is most likely Neanderthal-specific. So why is she saying it's not Neanderthal, but African?
quote:A strong prediction flows from this analysis: people living at low latitudes will have narrow bodies and a linear body build, while those at high latitudes will have wide bodies and a relatively bulky stature. When Ruff surveyed 71 popula- tions around the globe, he found that the prediction was sustained very well. He also discovered that Allen’s rule applies convincingly, with tropical people having longer, thinner limbs, which maximizes heat loss, while people at high latitudes have shorter limbs. A comparison of the tall Nilotic people of Africa with the relatively stocky Eskimos in the northern-most latitudes of North America illustrates this difference very clearly. (See figures 11.3 and 11.4.)
quote:FIGURE 11.5 Body outlines of modern populations: Figures below the outlines give the surface area to body mass ratio (cm2/kg). Note the broad body and short stature of the Eskimo, and a low ratio; the Nilotic body is narrow and linear, with a high ratio. The Pygmy has the same body breadth as the Nilotic and a similar ratio. (Courtesy 01 C. B. Rull.)
There also other bogus claims and insinuations in this article. For instance the author seems to be working from the premise of no OOA migration after mtDNA M and N left, since she insinuates repeatedly that Neanderthals were the only source of African ancestry that non-Africans had access to:
quote:The work highlights just how much diversity was lost when people passed through a genetic bottleneck as they moved out of Africa.
“They left many beneficial variants behind in Africa,” says evolutionary genomicist Tony Capra of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who reported the results. “Interbreeding with Neandertals provided an opportunity to get back some of those variants, albeit with many potentially weakly deleterious Neandertal alleles as well.”
^Completely out of touch with reality. If Africans can leave once, they can do it again. No need to imagine Neanderthals as some sort of special reservoir of African ancestry for non-Africans to tap into. And this whole notion of "lost African variants" in bottlenecked OOA populations seems to be a bogus as well. How can you lose African alleles through drift, when your genome is based on an African template? After this bottleneck, the genomes of non-Africans were no longer based on an African template? And they got that template back because Neanderthals were a special reservoir of African ancestry? Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet, you just answered your question. It's world stage pseudo sciences. It doesn't even pass the look test. Papuans have the most of this 'Neanderthal' admixture and they look so much like Africans their country was named after an African country.
Thanks all for the comments and double thanks to Elmaestro for that work. Time to hit the books...
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still interested in your take as far as your objection to the article. I just thought your smiley meant you co-signed this part:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote: The most parsimonious explanation is that these alleles represent the ancestral human condition, inherited by both Neandertals and modern humans in Africa from their common ancestor, Capra says.
^Since you seemed to give the most objectionable part the green light, your gripe with the article seemed unclear. I just thought it was funny how gramps made a whole conversation out of the OP. But like I said, maybe I'm clueless and you're having a conversation I'm not privy to.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
------------------- quote: The most parsimonious explanation is that these alleles represent the ancestral human condition, inherited by **both** Neandertals and modern humans in Africa from their common ancestor, Capra says.
quote Prof Svante Pääbo, at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, who led the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome in 2010 and has championed the idea that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, said he was surprised that Manica's work had been published, since his original paper had admitted a role for substructuring in Africa in the sharing of DNA between humans and Neanderthals. "But we regard this as a less parsimonious explanation," he said. ---------------------------
My Take? Paabo did not want the paper published which criticizes or debunks his sick voyeuristic view of Neanderthals and humans fugking and having babies. Manica is stating there was no love making between Neanderthal and humans the dissimilarities between African and non-African regarding Neanderthal genes has to do with humans and Neanderthal having the same mommy and daddy but the humans that left Africa 60,000ya is less diverse and has a slower mutation rate that is why the “Neanderthal” ancestry can be easily detected.
Are we clear? My “rant” ie numerous post was in support of the sub-structure view point. We good?! Lol! Oh! Dr Capra (not my home boy) and I seems to be on the same page.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. Makes more sense now, gramps. Not that I agree. But I can see your posts' connection to the OP is the link to the article. You kinda had me scratching my head.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had an African fellow from Burndi show me his 23andme test. He was 98% SSA with too many Neanderthal variants to have come from the 2% 'other'. It wasn't a lot. It was about 0.25%. We share much if not most of our genes with bears, dolphins etc but this was the same pattern as the admixture just less of it. This looked like the founders effect from a Neanderthal-like homo-sapien. That baseline 'Neanderthal' variation was in ancient Africans, if not more of it since they were closer to the common ancestor. When they left Africa they maintained it while losing intra diversity. I then realized xyyman was probably right so I dug into the math behind the simulations. Within it I'm seeing parsimonious whistles and ethnocentric pseudo science. Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I had an African fellow from Burndi show me his 23andme test. He was 98% SSA with too many Neanderthal variants to have come from the 2% 'other'. It wasn't a lot. It was about 0.25%. We share much if not most of our genes with bears, dolphins etc but this was the same pattern as the admixture just less of it. This looked like the founders effect from a Neanderthal-like homo-sapien. That baseline 'Neanderthal' variation was in ancient Africans, if not more of it since they were closer to the common ancestor. When they left Africa they maintained it while losing intra diversity. I then realized xyyman was probably right so I dug into the math behind the simulations. Within it I'm seeing parsimonious whistles and ethnocentric pseudo science.
Ok. I'm not saying that can't be true. But remember that most Neanderthals have African mtDNA haplogroups. They have mostly lost their native Denisovan-like mtDNAs. Any researcher looking at shared ancestry between Neanderthals and Africans should take this into account. That is why I thought that Capra quote deserved more questioning and partly why I didn't understand the OP (that quote was the most objectionable part of the article). It can't all just be shared proto-human ancestry as Capra claims.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
" But remember that most Neanderthals have African mtDNA haplogroups. "
Ha! Ha! hA! HA! what do you get from making shyte up? My god man! You baffle me sometimes. Sometimes you are on point other times you are off the cliff,,,,
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: " But remember that most Neanderthals have African mtDNA haplogroups. "
Ha! Ha! hA! HA! what do you get from making shyte up? My god man! You baffle me sometimes. Sometimes you are on point other times you are off the cliff,,,,
Nuclear DNA indicated Neanderthals as a sister group of Denisovans after diverging from modern humans. However, the closer affinity of the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to modern humans than Denisovans has recently been suggested as the result of gene flow from an African source into Neanderthals before 100,000 years ago. Here we report the complete mtDNA of an archaic femur from the Hohlenstein–Stadel (HST) cave in southwestern Germany. HST carries the deepest divergent mtDNA lineage that splits from other Neanderthals ∼270,000 years ago, providing a lower boundary for the time of the putative mtDNA introgression event. We demonstrate that a complete Neanderthal mtDNA replacement is feasible over this time interval even with minimal hominin introgression https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046
Try to keep up, gramps. This is old stuff.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Dr. Winters may find this intesrting…..with the Khoisan being in Southern Europe. Again we are back to the two European points closest to Africa. LOL! Yet they still call it Neanderthal?Eurasian DNA. They can’t help themselves. Delusion.
Quote: According to conventional thinking, the Khoisan tribes of southern Africa, have lived in near-isolation from the rest of humanity for thousands of years. In fact, the study shows that some of their DNA matches most closely people from modern-day southern Europe, including Spain and Italy. Because Eurasian people also carry traces of Neanderthal DNA, the finding also shows – for the first time – that genetic material from our extinct cousin may be WIDESPREAD in African populations
---
Here is something to make you laugh....White people are everywhere!!!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! These people are insanely delusional. Really?!
Quote: The cultural implications are complex and potentially uncomfortably close to European colonial themes. "I actually am not sure there's any population that doesn't have west Eurasian [DNA]," says Reich.
----
more from ESR
The war continues….Hot off the press!! Logic always prevails. This is self-explanaory. Africans now have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA….correction…it is not Neaderthal or Denisovan DNA….It is African after all.
I told you so!! In short. The so called Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA found in Eurasians are from Africans after all The truth eventually comes out.
This is a great year!!!! Warning the original study is over 60-pages. Here is the abstract. If someone needs me to break it down further…ask. Btw: Henn et al used IBD to conclude the one way migration of North Africans into lower Europe.
========== Sharing of Very Short IBD Segments between Humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans
Gundula Povysil, Sepp Hochreiter (April2014)
We analyze the sharing of very short identity by descent (IBD) segments between humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans to gain new insights into their demographic history. Short IBD segments convey information about events far back in time because the shorter IBD segments are, the older they are assumed to be. The identification of short IBD segments becomes possible through next generation sequencing (NGS), which offers high variant density and reports variants of all frequencies. However, only recently HapFABIA has been proposed as the first method for detecting very short IBD segments in NGS data. HapFABIA utilizes rare variants to identify IBD segments with a low false discovery rate. We applied HapFABIA to the 1000 Genomes Project whole genome sequencing data to identify IBD segments which are shared within and between populations. Some IBD segments are shared with the reconstructed ancestral genome of humans and other primates. These segments are tagged by rare variants, consequently some rare variants have to be very old. Other IBD segments are also old since they are shared with Neandertals or Denisovans, which explains their shorter lengths compared to segments that are not shared with these ancient genomes. The Denisova genome most prominently matched IBD segments that are shared by Asians. Many of these segments were found exclusively in Asians and they are longer than segments shared between other continental populations and the Denisova genome. Therefore, we could confirm an introgression from Deniosvans into ancestors of Asians after their migration out of Africa. While Neandertal-matching IBD segments are most often shared by Asians, Europeans share a considerably higher percentage of IBD segments with Neandertals compared to other populations, too. Again, many of these Neandertal-matching IBD segments are found exclusively in Asians, whereas Neandertal-matching IBD segments that are shared by Europeans are often found in other populations, too. Neandertal-matching IBD segments that are shared by Asians or Europeans are longer than those observed in Africans. This hints at a gene flow from Neandertals into ancestors of Asians and Europeans after they left Africa. Interestingly, many Neandertal- or Denisova-matching IBD segments are PREDOMINANTLY observed in Africans - SOME OF THEM EVEN EXCLUSIVELY. IBD segments shared between Africans and Neandertals or Denisovans are strikingly short, therefore we assume that they are very old. This may indicate that these segments stem from ancestors of humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans and have survived in Africans. ===== Am I the best or what…..lol!
The main point here is Paabo and his side-kick clowns were mis-interpreting the data all along. Or, they were just plain ole lying about NOT finding Neanderthal DNA in SSA. Neanderthal DNA found in Africans are OLDER than outside Africa. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
They games these people play.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not here to argue with you. The paper and post are there for people to make up their own mind.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no argument son. I don't argue because few are capable of arguing with me.
I teach!
Up to you to learn from my teachings....
Your call
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
1. Africans share more EXCLUSIVELY DNA with Neandertahals than Eurasian. Henn proved this through short IBD. Meaning it is harder to detect in Africans depending on the method used. This is consistent with the hypothesis that Neanderthal and AMH has the same mommy and daddy(or aunt and uncle) which accounts for “admixture”. There was no fugking taking place. They are siblings…or more accurately cousins ie Homo Erectus. In the sick homo mind of Paabo fugking was taking place but it wasn’t. 2. The reason it is so hard to detect in modern Africans is because of the large diversity (ie many more mutations/recombination) in Africans compared to Papuans. Paupans left OOA early so they will have more “Neanderthal” DNA ie less diversity. Europeans are lucky..why? Because they were being fugked by Africans and having their babies. Forcing Lazaridis to conclude Neolithics/EEF diluted the Neanderthal DNA in modern Europeans.
End of class! This is not too difficult to understand ..is it? Don’t believe me? Read Henn and Lazaridis paper. F...orget the batty boy Paabo and his nonsense.
----------
Sssssssoooo!!!! Paabo, Gravel and the crew were lying all along….Or were they just incompetent liars?
===== Quote from the recent study: 3.1.2 Sharing of IBD Segments Between Continental Populations We found that most IBD segments are observed in only one continental population, which are, in most cases, Africans. However, for non-Africans, we saw a considerable sharing of IBD segments across continental groups. The sharing between continental populations seems to CONTRADICT statements in other publications. For example, Gravel et al. (13) report that sharing of SNVs between continental groups is low.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like Henn. She is a good woman caught between a rock and hard place...
--------
Speaking about IBD. @Beyoku. What do you think? Can we pull IBD from the Abusir and do an alignment with HAPMAP.? I prefer HAPMAP vs HGDP. Why? The fugkers do not have SSA East Africans in HGDP we want to stay away from comparing Abusir with Yorubans. That has been played out. Compare them with SSA East Africans.
You said we cannot pull CODIS STR from the Abusir. I don’t believe it…but that is another discussion. I have always been right.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
The brow ridge was one of the last traits to be lost in the path to anatomically modern humans, and only disappeared in a majority of modern humans with the development of the modern pronounced frontal lobe. This is one of the most salient differences between Homo sapiens and other species like the Homo neanderthalensis.
Early modern people like the finds from Jebel Irhoud and Skhul and Qafzeh had thick, large brow ridges, and also some living people, have quite pronounced brow ridges, but they differ from those of archaic humans like Neanderthals by having a supraorbital foramen or notch, forming a groove through the ridge above each eye.[14] This splits the ridge into central parts and distal parts. In current humans, almost always only the central sections of the ridge are preserved (if preserved at all). This contrasts with many archaic and early modern modern humans, where the brow ridge is pronounced and unbroken (sometimes called frontal torus).[15]
Prominent supraorbital ridges among modern humans are most common among Australian Aborigines and Papuans.
posted
Wait, I can't follow this DNA argument completely. But I do have a question, but what constitutes "anatomically modern humans" Is that humans sans brow ridge sans prothaganism? Who determind this designation? Is it scientific or ethnocentric?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anatomically Modern Human (AMH) means people who were physically like us. This term was coined because some humans were anatomically just like modern humans, but in their culture there was no evidence that they were cognitively like us. This meant researchers couldn't make the assumption that these humans were cognitively anything like us. So, to get around this, they said we will introduce the term 'anatomically modern' to avoid making assumptions about cognitive modernity. They use "cognitively modern" only when, aside from anatomical modernity, there is also evidence of behavioural modernity. Examples of behavioural modernity are rock art, sculptures, intentional burial, full-fledged language, etc. It might seem self-evident that every one who looked like us, would have behaved like us. But it's not. Hence, why the terms are used.
Anatomical modernity has nothing to do with whether or not you have a brow ridge or prognathism. There need to be many more features before AMH (anatomically modern human) status can be established or called into question.
The term anatomically modern human is only applied to humans that lived in the past (more than 10ky ago). It's not applied to living humans. It is not needed for living humans because the humans that survived until today all qualify as anatomically and cognitively modern. It's only when we go back >10ky that we encounter humans who may or may not be fully modern in an anatomical or cognitive sense. So the term AMH is only used for remains that are older than 10ky old. If the remains are younger, then the assumption is made that they're modern by default.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok,thank you. But what morphological traits are considered pre AMH? Which ethinic groups currently have "less" or zero pre AMH traits? Which groups are considered the most modern?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there an identifiable genetic DNA difference between Pre 10k humans and post 10k humans? Or is the definition of modern by Eurocentric scientist code for "white folks"?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
The nuclear genome from this specimen suggested that Denisovans shared a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some modern humans,[9] with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians and around 6% in Papuans deriving from Denisovans.
Papuans and Australian Aborigines share the greatest fraction of 'Denisovan' introgression, followed by Boungaville Melanesians, Fijians, Timorese, Alorese and Mamanwa speakers (probable Ati). These and other peoples of beyond what used to be the continental landmass of Asia in the Ice Age, retain some level of 'Denisovan' admixture.
If you look at the thick skull structure and brow many Australian Aborigines and Papuans have it may have something to do with Denisova admixture which may have originated in Siberia
Caroline Wilkenson, a Forensic anthropologist,said (2004)
1) Australoids have the largest brow ridges
2) Europeans have the second largest brow ridges
3) Africans have the third largest brow ridges
4) East Asians are "absent brow ridges."
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: ok,thank you. But what morphological traits are considered pre AMH? Which ethinic groups currently have "less" or zero pre AMH traits? Which groups are considered the most modern?
Here are a couple of things to keep in mind when it comes to assessing anatomical modernity:
*Some traits overlap with archaic humans, not because there is genetic affinity, but because the trait may have arisen independently in archaic humans and some modern human lineages. In those cases, using traits to rank living humans in terms of most/less anatomically modern doesn't mean anything. It's just a superficial commonality in that case.
*Some traits overlap with archaic humans, not because there is extra genetic affinity with archaic humans, but because the trait may be a retention that never changed in a minority of living humans. Since this living minority now stands out from the living majority (who happen to lack the ancestral trait), some will point to them and say there is something wrong with them/that they're more archaic. This is scientific racism. Just because a trait is new in the history of modern humans, and lacking in a minority of living humans, it doesn't mean that the trait is modern in the sense of being linked to anatomical or cognitive modernity.
But to answer your question, there are no living humans who lack anatomical overlap with archaic humans. In scientific racism Europeans have often tried to create a hierarchy with themselves on top in terms of anatomical modernity. This persists to recent times when researchers have tried to say that cognitive modernity is absent in the African archaeological record early on, and appears first in Europe ~40 000 years ago. The problem with this of course is that 40 000 years ago, Europe was just settled by out of Africa humans. European AMHs were new to Europe and so whatever evidence of cognitive modernity found among them didn't originate there, but was already present among the OOA migrants who settled Europe.
Anyway, to come back to your question. These hierarchies with Europeans on top and ordering along racial lines melt away when the analysis is done correctly. To give an example, gracile bone structure is considered a strong indicator of anatomical modernity. Sub-Saharan Africans, not Europeans, have the most gracile bone structure. They don't tell you this in scientific racist literature.
quote:Often, skeletal sex is difficult to assign due to age of the individual, fragmentary nature of the remains, or assemblage-wide variation: for example, Sudanese and sub-Saharan males tend to have more gracile skulls than European males (Lahr 1996) potentially causing confusion to a researcher inexperienced at assessing sex in Sudanese skeletal remains but leading those more experienced to add more weight to sexual assessment of the pelvis (when preserved).
So what this shows is that different traits pull living humans in different directions as far as more or less overlap with archaics. Europeans overlap more with archaic humans in brow morphology and robusticity than populations that were supposedly at the bottom of the hierarchy.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: ok,thank you. But what morphological traits are considered pre AMH? Which ethinic groups currently have "less" or zero pre AMH traits? Which groups are considered the most modern?
Read this book if you want to know more about specific traits and how different populations overlap more or less with archaic humans:
posted
@Swenet thank you for you answer I will be sure to check that book out.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're welcome. I see the book is not cheap. If you want to know the sort of stuff you're getting, see this paper. The book has data like that, except the book talks about more traits than this paper (which is mainly concerned with gracility). The paper below and the book are from the same author (Lahr):
posted
With Amazon prime membership, which I have, it is only $73 bucks in paperback, not expensive at all. However for me, the question is am I sufficiently interested in the topic to make it a part of my already extensive library? I am not sure.
I am still curious to find out what is considered "modern" DNA wise, is it the amount of mutations? Are mutations always progressive? Can mutations be regressive?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
See this pic (anatomically modern humans at the top, the rest are not anatomically modern, but anatomically archaic):
Admixture with the archaic humans depicted here would result in the inheritance of archaic DNA. Notice that these archaic humans all share certain anatomical features (e.g. brow ridges, lack of vertical foreheads, etc) that are weaker or absent in modern humans. This is why these features come up in conversations about anatomical modernity. When living humans have combinations of features that resemble these archaic humans, it's likely that they have archaic human ancestry. This archaic ancestry would not be considered modern DNA. But keep in mind that there are levels to this. Inheriting DNA from a Neanderthal results in more modern DNA, than inheriting DNA from humans lower in the tree (although both sources of ancestry are archaic compared to the DNA of living humans).
quote:I am still curious to find out what is considered "modern" DNA wise, is it the amount of mutations? Are mutations always progressive? Can mutations be regressive?
We're not there yet that we would devote a lot of discussion to specific mutations being archaic or modern. Although there are some exceptions, like the B006 haplotype, which has been detected early on (before there were any Neanderthal genomes) as a stretch of DNA that was inherited from archaic humans.
But right now most estimations of archaic DNA are based on shared DNA, which is a shaky method to detect archaic ancestry. Why? Because when you're trying to detect shared DNA, it doesn't tell you what the source is of that ancestry; it just tells you that it's shared. See my comments above about some so-called Neanderthal actually being very ancient African DNA. The picture below shows this ancient African ancestry in Neanderthals. Most papers wrongly treat this ancestry as Neanderthal, so DNA sharing with Neanderthals doesn't mean that you actually have ancestry from Neanderthals.
posted
"Inheriting DNA from a Neanderthal results in more modern DNA"
Why?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are asking a good question. Most palaeontologists cannot begin to explain why Neanderthals are more modern than Erectus and other archaics. When you ask them they just say that their behaviour is more modern (e.g. huge improvements in the tools compared to the tools other archaics made). But this doesn't tell you why Neanderthals were more like us (in terms of behaviour), than other archaics were. It doesn't explain why other archaics lacked more modern human behaviour nor is there any explanation as to why nature 'chose' to 'endow' us with the most modern brains and anatomies (e.g. developed vocal tract appropriate for language). This is where you get in the realm of spirituality because according to mainstream evolution, nature is dumb and can't 'choose' or have a greater plan. So most scientists can't begin to explain it. Especially Darwinists. If Darwinists say they can, they're lying. This is one of those areas where mainstream western science will never make progress because they already have their minds made up about certain scenarios being ruled out.
Tyrannohotep, what do you think about the peculiar way modernity shows up in human lineages? Interested in what you have to say since you have a degree in biological anthropology.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Keep in mind that the immediate ancestor of Neanderthals isn't actually Homo erectus, but a species which developed later in Africa called Homo heidelbergensis. The consensus is that H. heidelbergensis represents the common ancestor of Neanderthals (along with Denisovans) and modern humans. Most probably, modern humans descend from those H. heidelbergensis that stayed behind in Africa whereas Neanderthals and Denisovans descend from those that migrated into Eurasia earlier (there were multiple waves of hominins migrating out of Africa into Eurasia prior to modern human OOA).
And as a matter of fact, H. heidelbergensis is phenotypically "intermediate" between H. erectus and modern humans:
quote:The skulls of this species share features with both Homo erectus and anatomically modern Homo sapiens. The archaic H. heidelbergensis brain was larger than H. erectus and smaller than most modern humans, and the skull is more rounded than in H. erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually smaller than in H. erectus, but larger than in modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis, so many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Tyrannohotep, what do you think about the peculiar way modernity shows up in human lineages? Interested in what you have to say since you have a degree in biological anthropology.
For what it's worth, I'm personally not convinced that Neanderthals or Denisovans were much more "modern" behaviorally or anatomically than their H. heidelbergensis common ancestor with us. The trend I've noted in human evolution is that while there were multiple waves of hominins dispersing out of Africa into Eurasia (like I said, H. erectus is an earlier example), it's the ones that stay in Africa longer that evolve into something more like modern humans. By contrast, the ones that leave Africa earlier tend to retain the "archaic" traits of their ancestors for the most part, apart perhaps from some cold adaptation. That makes me inclined to think that, something about the African environment during the Pleistocene was more conducive to the evolution of modern human anatomy and intelligence than that of Eurasia.
posted
" it's the ones that stay in Africa longer that evolve into something more like modern humans. By contrast, the ones that leave Africa earlier tend to retain the "archaic" traits of their ancestors for the most part, apart perhaps from some cold adaptation."
Yes, caused by inbreeding?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew I could count on you to have some thought-out answers ready.
But what in my post are you objecting to when you say this?
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: So it isn't really correct to say that H. heidelbergensis and its descendants aren't phenotypically more "modern" than the preceding H. erectus
My position is that the order of modernity in human lineages is as follows: anatomically modern humans, then archaic anatomically modern humans, then the Neanderthals (due to substantial admixture with AMHs), then Denisovans (due to lower admixture with AMHs), then the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Denisovans (whatever that ancestor was), then the various erectus and erectus-like lineages. I think we're broadly in agreement here, not disagreement. Unless I'm missing something.
quote:The trend I've noted in human evolution is that while there were multiple waves of hominins dispersing out of Africa into Eurasia (like I said, H. erectus is an earlier example), it's the ones that stay in Africa longer that evolve into something more like modern humans.
I agree a 100%. Hold this W for having noticed this consistent pattern. Most researchers and bloggers haven't gotten the memo yet (they think it's a coincidence). They will soon. Lol.
quote:That makes me inclined to think that, something about the African environment during the Pleistocene was more conducive to the evolution of modern human anatomy and intelligence than that of Eurasia.
But even in Africa, only one human lineage became as modern as we did; the lineage that birthed AMHs. Why, if they all evolved from the same archaic human stages we did? For this reason I think modernity can't be explained with the evolutionary processes of mainstream science. We don't observe other species developing 'modern behaviour' in nature. They just adapt to their environments in ways that mainstream science can explain fairly well. But we don't actually see them come closer to 'behavioural modernity' in the fossil record over time, as in the human fossil record. What do you think?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: But what in my post are you objecting to when you say this?
Earlier you said:
quote:Most palaeontologists cannot begin to explain why Neanderthals are more modern than Erectus and other archaics.
It sounded like you were arguing that Neanderthals don't appear much more "modern" than H. erectus. Did you mean H. heidelbergensis when you wrote that earlier sentence?
quote:But even in Africa, only one human lineage became as modern as we did; the lineage that birthed AMHs. Why, if they all evolved from the same archaic human stages we did? For this reason I think modernity can't be explained with the evolutionary processes of mainstream science. We don't observe other species developing 'modern behaviour' in nature. They just adapt to their environments in ways that mainstream science can explain fairly well. But we don't actually see them come closer to 'behavioural modernity' in the fossil record over time, as in the human fossil record. What do you think?
Honestly, this sounds a bit like the creationist argument saying, "if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys in the jungle?" It may not have been the case that, even within Africa, all environments were equally conducive to evolving the level of intelligence and social organization you see in modern humans. Exactly what the optimal environment would be, I don't know (although it would probably be wherever in Africa the current human lineage developed) for sure. But simply because there is a gap in our knowledge here doesn't mean that you can insert whatever "great plan" you have imagined into it. That's like attributing the construction of various ancient monuments to aliens due to our ignorance of how they were built.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic