posted
New research raises doubts about whether modern humans and Neanderthals interbred
August 13, 2012 Enlarge Homo neanderthalensis, adult male. Image Credit: John Gurche, artist / Chip Clark, photographer New research raises questions about the theory that modern humans and Neanderthals at some point interbred, known as hybridisation. The findings of a study by researchers at the University of Cambridge suggests that common ancestry, not hybridisation, better explains the average 1-4 per cent DNA that those of European and Asian descent (Eurasians) share with Neanderthals. It was published today, 13 August, in the journal PNAS. Ads by Google MCLAB DNA Sequencing - Fastest Free SF Bay Area Pickup Complete range of Products/Services - www.mclab.com In the last two years, a number of studies have suggested that modern humans and Neanderthals had at some point interbred. Genetic evidence shows that on average Eurasians and Neanderthals share between 1-4 per cent of their DNA.
In contrast, Africans have almost none of the Neanderthal genome. The previous studies concluded that these differences could be explained by hybridisation which occurred as modern humans exited Africa and bred with the Neanderthals who already inhabited Europe. However, a new study funded by the BBSRC and the Leverhulme Trust has provided an alternative explanation for the genetic similarities. The scientists found that common ancestry, without any hybridisation, explains the genetic similarities between Neanderthals and modern humans.
In other words, the DNA that Neanderthal and modern humans share can all be attributed to their common origin, without any recent influx of Neanderthal DNA into modern humans. Dr Andrea Manica, from the University of Cambridge, who led the study said: "Our work shows clearly that the patterns currently seen in the Neanderthal genome are not exceptional, and are in line with our expectations of what we would see without hybridisation. So, if any hybridisation happened - it's difficult to conclusively prove it never happened - then it would have been minimal and much less than what people are claiming now."
Neanderthals and modern humans once shared a common ancestor who is thought to have spanned Africa and Europe about half a million years ago. Just as there are very different populations across Europe today, populations of that common ancestor would not have been completely mixed across continents, but rather closer populations would have been more genetically similar to each other than populations further apart. (There is extensive genetic and archaeological evidence that population in Africa were 'structured'; in other words, different populations in Africa only had limited exchange through migration, allowing them to remain distinct from each other both in terms of genetics and morphology.)
Then, about 350-300 thousand years ago, the European range and the African range became separated. The European range evolved into Neanderthal, the African range eventually turned into modern humans. However, because the populations within each continent were not freely mixing, the DNA of the modern human population in Africa that were ancestrally closer to Europe would have retained more of the ancestral DNA (specifically, genetic variants) that is also shared with Neanderthals. On this basis, the scientists created a model to determine whether the differences in genetic similarities with Neanderthal among modern human populations, which had been attributed to hybridisation, could be down to the proximity of modern humans in northern Africa (who would have later gone on to populate Europe) to Neanderthals.
By examining the different genetic makeup among modern human populations, the scientists' model was able to infer how much genetic similarity there would have been between distinct populations within a continent. The researchers then simulated a large number of populations representing Africa and Eurasia over the last half a million years, and estimated how much similarity would be expected between a random Neanderthal individual and modern humans in Africa and Eurasia.
The scientists concluded that when modern humans expanded out of Africa 60-70K years ago, they would have brought out that additional genetic similarity with them, making Europeans and Asians more similar to Neanderthals than Africans are on average – undermining the theory that hybridization, and not common ancestry, explained these differences.
Dr Manica added: "Thus, based on common ancestry and geographic differences among populations within each continent, we would predict out of Africa populations to be more similar to Neanderthals than their African counterparts - exactly the patterns that were observed when the Neanderthal genome was sequenced; but this pattern was attributed to hybridisation. Hopefully, everyone will become more cautious before invoking hybridisation, and start taking into account that ancient populations differed from each other probably as much as modern populations do."
More information: Effect of ancient population structure on the degree of polymorphism shared between modern human populations and ancient hominins, PNAS, August 13, 2012. Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Provided by University of Cambridge
posted
Not multi disciplinary, when will they learn? AMHs (e.g., the skull specimen) show many plesiomorphic traits that are intermediate between archaic humans and other AMHs from the same type site. Granted, this can be explained by the explanation offered here (the sharing of more archaic human genetic material), but how can you explain the presence of cold adapted limb proportions among some of the the skhull specimen? Skhull 5's limb proportions, for example, can be assigned to Europeans with a certainty of 99.7%, per Holiday 2000.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
These studies are proving more and more that the concept of race is real and that we are different racially! Thanks for sharing, Clyde.
Posts: 507 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not multi disciplinary, when will they learn? AMHs (e.g., the skull specimen) show many plesiomorphic traits that are intermediate between archaic humans and other AMHs from the same type site. Granted, this can be explained by the explanation offered here (the sharing of more archaic human genetic material), but how can you explain the presence of cold adapted limb proportions among some of the the skhull specimen? Skhull 5's limb proportions, for example, can be assigned to Europeans with a certainty of 99.7%, per Holiday 2000.
According to this study you would explain the cold adpated limb proportions as adapatation to the cold by AMH
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to make sense of some the things this article is getting at...
quote:Genetic evidence shows that on average Eurasians and Neanderthals share between 1-4 per cent of their DNA.
I've said before, and will do so now: this is misleading, without contextualizing which segments of the genome have been investigated, or whether this percentage is an allusion to the proportion of genetic difference seen within a definite sample size.
Anyone with common sense will contextualize it, because variation among modern humans only amounts to about .01%, if not even less.
quote: In other words, the DNA that Neanderthal and modern humans share can all be attributed to their common origin, without any recent influx of Neanderthal DNA into modern humans.
And these researchers only figured this possibility out now?
quote: Then, about 350-300 thousand years ago, the European range and the African range became separated. The European range evolved into Neanderthal, the African range eventually turned into modern humans. However, because the populations within each continent were not freely mixing, the DNA of the modern human population in Africa that were ancestrally closer to Europe would have retained more of the ancestral DNA (specifically, genetic variants) that is also shared with Neanderthals. On this basis, the scientists created a model to determine whether the differences in genetic similarities with Neanderthal among modern human populations, which had been attributed to hybridisation, could be down to the proximity of modern humans in northern Africa (who would have later gone on to populate Europe) to Neanderthals.
This is the part that makes little sense to me.
It seems to imply that the "common ancestor" of Neanderthals and modern humans gave rise to modern humans somewhere in northern Africa, whereby the modern humans in Africa retained more of their genetic similarity with Neanderthals in northern Africa, who would then go onto populate Europe...hence, explaining that "1-4%" percent genetic similarity alleged between Neanderthals and modern non-Africans.
The above is only one of two possible ways to interpret their theory, as it would imply that other populations within continent only became relatively more distinct from that "common ancestor" mentioned above, when they started diverging and parting ways.
On the other hand, the interpretation of their theory would be that, the modern humans in northern Africa became more genetic similar to Neanderthals, because the climatic/environmental pressures of northern Africa were relatively more similar to Europe. This would open up another can of worms, because they will have to prove that not only genetically, but also ecologically.
quote: The scientists concluded that when modern humans expanded out of Africa 60-70K years ago, they would have brought out that additional genetic similarity with them, making Europeans and Asians more similar to Neanderthals than Africans are on average – undermining the theory that hybridization, and not common ancestry, explained these differences.
...which would imply, based on what I noted above, that the northern African-based "modern humans" were the ones who left the continent to go onto give rise to "Europeans and Asians". If not, maybe someone else has a different interpretation for what the article author(s) is implying?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
1) What is this "subdivided structure" they are talking about below? Any articles or discussions you have run across on it? How do the would the sub-divisions work and on what basis? A northern group? Southern?
QUOTE: (There is extensive genetic and archaeological evidence that population in Africa were 'structured'; in other words, different populations in Africa only had limited exchange through migration, allowing them to remain distinct from each other both in terms of genetics and morphology.)
2) BY what route and time frame does the lit usually posit that Neanderthals entered Europe? Mideast? Gibraltar strait? Have probably run across it but cannot remember info just now. Also by what route the later "Cro-Magnons?"
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not multi disciplinary, when will they learn? AMHs (e.g., the skull specimen) show many plesiomorphic traits that are intermediate between archaic humans and other AMHs from the same type site. Granted, this can be explained by the explanation offered here (the sharing of more archaic human genetic material), but how can you explain the presence of cold adapted limb proportions among some of the the skhull specimen? Skhull 5's limb proportions, for example, can be assigned to Europeans with a certainty of 99.7%, per Holiday 2000.
According to this study you would explain the cold adpated limb proportions as adapatation to the cold by AMH
You're just saying stuff without looking at things in context. Skhull 5 is, out of the Skhull/Qafzeh specimen Holiday studied, the only specimen of its type site with that much post-cranial affinity to Europeans. The next specimen from that type site with affinity to Europeans which is worthy of mention, is Skhull 6, with a 24.4% likelihood of belonging to Euro's, and a 75.6% likelihood of belonging to Africans. The rest of the likelihoods of them belonging to Europeans all fall below 8.3%.
Not even the Upper Palaeolithic Europeans studied by Holiday 1997a have as much body shape affinity with modern Europeans as Skhull 5 does, yet Holiday speculated that even UPE (who have modern Sudanese as their closest match in body shape) likely experienced introgression from a cold adapted source.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from the above, this study faces another huge problem.
The pattern of introgression that has been posited by scientists that belong to the 'introgression camp', is one that fits logically with the known distribution of archaic humans; East Asians have a bit of archaic DNA of the archaic humans that lived in Asia (Denisovians and Neanderthals), and Europeans have a bit of archaic DNA of the archaic humans that lived in Europe (Neanderthal). Its a bit convenient to suggest that ancestral Europeans and ancestral Asian groups coincidentally met up with the archaic humans they each shared a bit of ancestral material with before OOA, and that they did this several times (there were several OOA migrations).
^BTW, a fully colored pie chart in Australian Aboriginal populations doesn't mean they're a 100% Denisovian; its the 4% they're talking about, but scaled.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're just saying stuff without looking at things in context. Skhull 5 is, out of the Skhull/Qafzeh specimen Holiday studied, the only specimen of its type site with that much post-cranial affinity to Europeans. The next specimen from that type site with affinity to Europeans which is worthy of mention, is Skhull 6, with a 24.4% likelihood of belonging to Euro's, and a 75.6% likelihood of belonging to Africans. The rest of the likelihoods of them belonging to Europeans all fall below 8.3%.
Not even the Upper Palaeolithic Europeans studied by Holiday 1997a have as much body shape affinity with modern Europeans as Skhull 5 does, yet Holiday speculated that even UPE (who have modern Sudanese as their closest match in body shape) likely experienced introgression from a cold adapted source.
Cartmill and SMith in their discussion of SKhul 5 and Holiday note Skhul 5 is an outlier from the general sample pool- not typical of the group- and that said outlier might signal limited, local archaic influence in the more typical African group. QUOTE:
An alternative interpretation, discussed below, is that the Skhul 5 body form and other atypical variants in the SQ sample are signs of a limited contribution by local archaic humans to an essentially modern gene pool derived from migrants out of sub-Saharan Africa."
--M. Cartmill, F. SMith. (2004) The Human Lineage
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. Skhull 5 has often been brought into association with archaic forms because of certain cranio-facial features, but this particular specimen from the Skhull/Qafzeh sites is not unique in this regard, as the source above correctly observes.
This makes for a never ending debate, of whether these 'archaic' cranio-facial traits signal introgression, or whether they're imply remnant plesiomorphies, not realizing that almost all AMH have archaic traits in some way shape or form.
Holiday correctly notes that his field of expertise is much more reliable, when attempting to discern introgression in OOA groups, since it controls for the plesiomorphic explanation.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I've said many times, until geneticists have mapped the genomes of every human population and thus all the variations between, which as Explorer says is miniscule, I won't hold my breath.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except the human genome is complete, and has been for quite some time. INCLUDING theb caucasoid genome
The filthy pink assed monkey just does not like what it shows! That being that the white man is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape and a sub species of homo sapien
The white man shares exactly ZERO% ancestral Y-line parental DNA with any East Asian, Southeast Asian, Austrailian or African.
The reason for that is because Neanderthakl was the white mans daddy!
posted
I continue to say, why would anyone listen to anythinmg that this pink assed monkey has to say? when it is not blatantly lying, it is willffully deciminating inaccurate information
Here you can start here with the full human genome! Notice how nervous these devils get when it comes to the caucasian genome! hehehehe!
posted
I continue to say, why would anyone listen to anythinmg that this pink assed monkey has to say? when it is not blatantly lying, it is willffully deciminating inaccurate information
Here you can start here with the full human genome! Notice how nervous these devils get when it comes to the caucasian genome! hehehehe!
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I continue to say, why would anyone listen to anythinmg that this pink assed monkey has to say? when it is not blatantly lying, it is willffully deciminating inaccurate information
Here you can start here with the full human genome! Notice how nervous these devils get when it comes to the caucasian genome! hehehehe!
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vansertimavindicated: Except the human genome is complete, and has been for quite some time. INCLUDING theb caucasoid genome
The filthy pink assed monkey just does not like what it shows! That being that the white man is the offspring of a 48 chromosome ape and a sub species of homo sapien
The white man shares exactly ZERO% ancestral Y-line parental DNA with any East Asian, Southeast Asian, Austrailian or African.
The reason for that is because Neanderthakl was the white mans daddy!
You are right here regarding the extent of completed gnome versus what they allow you to see.
I'm beginning to agree with you on modern whites being derived from Neanderthal. Their seems to be a huge difference between Albino "Gentiles" and Albino "Jews". Too wide a difference to explain through geographic environments.
Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
Their seems to be a huge difference between Albino "Gentiles" and Albino "Jews". Too wide a difference to explain through geographic environments. [/QB]
what difference are you referring to?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
1) What is this "subdivided structure" they are talking about below? Any articles or discussions you have run across on it? How do the would the sub-divisions work and on what basis? A northern group? Southern?
QUOTE: (There is extensive genetic and archaeological evidence that population in Africa were 'structured'; in other words, different populations in Africa only had limited exchange through migration, allowing them to remain distinct from each other both in terms of genetics and morphology.)
When they speak of "structuring", I gather that they are referring to their ability to sense certain discriminating phenetic tendencies between the discrete sample series. As the logic goes, certain in-group tendencies observed in one series are determined to be distinguishable from that of an out-group.
[Notice that I use the word "tendencies", since these observed "characteristics" of a set need not be entirely pervasive in said group, just that they appear fairly frequently when compared against other sets, using a designated genetic locus or body part as the measuring standard.]
quote:
2) BY what route and time frame does the lit usually posit that Neanderthals entered Europe? Mideast? Gibraltar strait? Have probably run across it but cannot remember info just now. Also by what route the later "Cro-Magnons?"
I'm not sure there has been any firm theory about how or when specifically the Neanderthals got in Europe. From palaeontological indicators, a case could be made that they may have evolved either in Europe itself or the northern climes of the so-called "Middle East". There is a fairly low probability that they entered Europe in their familiar evolved form from Africa via the northern coasts, since evidence is lacking. Skeletal finds deemed to have the so-called "proto-Neanderthal" characteristics would seem to imply that Neanderthals could well have spent early stages of their formative period in Europe.
The walk-upright hominid ancestors of Neanderthals, which in all likelihood closely resembled the Homo Erectus of Africa--if not from the same immediate source of contemporary modern humans, would have come from Africa.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explorer, can you please comment in the Otzi the Iceman thread, the fact that John Hawkes and Razib Khan did modeling on Otzi Man using data from Nature's genome sequencing, finding 5.5% Neanderthal DNA buy why Nature didn't mention Neanderthal ancestry
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally believe that someone should convene a committee at the University of Wisconsin madison to examine whether ""ASSOCIATE"" professor John Hawks has the moral character to teach at a University. The lie that John Hawks is telling in his blog about Otzi the iceman possessing 5.5% Neanderthal DNA disqualifies him from advancing past being an associate proffessor! There is a limit somewhere. And Hawks has just gone beyond it by representing himself as an expert and then telling a provable lie on his blog where others can pick it up!
This will be one thread that the low IQ monkey will regret ever creating! And the degenerate cracker is too stupid to understand why!
HERE IS THE DATA THAT IRREFUTABLY PROVES THAT OTZI THE ICEMAN HAD ZERO% NEANDERTHAL DNA
What these filthy pink assed monkeys have been counting on is that most people cannot read the data, and then they can refer you to an ""associate"" professor who is a member of a white supremacist, neo nazi blog to interprate that data for you! The Single nucleotide polymorphism and SSLP alleles show that Otzi the iceman possessed ZERO% Neanderthal DNA which means one of two things!
A) John Hawks is an abject incompetant B) John Hawks is a congenital liar
EITHER WAY IT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY HE IS NOT A FULL PROFESSOR AND RELEGATED TO BLOGS! PASS THIS ALONG, BECAUSE JOHN HAWKS HAS PROVED THAT HE IS EITHER INCOMPETANT OR A LIAR.. EITHER WAY THE MORON IS SOMEONE THAT CANNOYT BE TRUSTED!
and tht is why the filthy pink assed monkeys HERE and the pink assed neo nazis at stormfront love him! PASS THE INFO ALONG!
THE DESPERATIOM OF THE CRACKER HAS NEVER BEEN MORE APPARENT! IT DOES NOT EVEN CARE THAT IT IS EXPOSED AS A CLOWN SHOW!!!WATCHING THIS FILTHY, DEGENERATE REPROBATE TWIST ITS INCOMPETANT PINK ASS IN KNOTS IS SO FULFILLING ISNT IT? I PRESENT A ""PEER REVIEWED"" PAPER ON THE GENOME OF OTZI THE ICEMAN, AND THIS PATHETIC PIECE OF SHIIT COUNTERS WITH AN INCOMPETANT, RACIST, ""ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR"" AND BLOGS! HAHAHAHA! YOU TOO CAN LEAD THESE LOW IQ MONKEYS BY THE TAIL!
The laughable thing about all if this is that I show a **PEER REVIEWD"" paper of Otzi the icemans genome that irrefutably proves that Otzi possessed ZERO% Neanderthal DNA based on the SNP and this monkey counters the PEER REVIEWD PAPER with some fallaceous blogs! LOL take a look at this peer reviewed paper again!'
DID YOU KNOW THIS?????? Stormfront is a white nationalist and supremacist neo-Nazi website whose claim to fame is that it is known as the Internet's first major hate site! They are so seem to like John Hawkes there dont they? LOL
ANDF THIS IS WHO THE SYRINGY HAIRED PINK ASSED MONKEY USES AS A SOURCE! ARE WE REALLY EVEN SURPRISED?
Folks you can find the asscociate professor John Hawkes on this white supremacist and registered hate site! This is who the pathetic pink assed monkey is sourcing! A racist with a blog
OTZI THE ICEMAN POSSESSED ZERO% NEANDERTHAL DNA AND I WILL SHOW YOU THE ""PEER REVIEWED"" PAPER WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPLETE GENOME OF OTZI THE ICEMAN THAT PROVES IT!
Its actually a good thing that this degenerate monkey tried to fool us all with that blog, because it shows you the lengths that these filthy degenerate monkeys will go to in order to dessiminate a lie! Trying to make you believe that Discovery Magazine wrote that was a nice little touch that the scumbag used now wasnt it? LOL
The scumbag is following the same model that it used with Clyde Winters folks!and even Mike111 where the monkey created that realhistory website that I outed! And now it is using a blog and trying to fool you because of itys link to Discover magazine! Si whenever you see anything written in a blog like this, or whenever you envounter the name Razib Khan ... you know it is just another snakeoil salesman! Anyone with questions just email me at my site!!! This scumbag says Otzi was more Neanderthal than the average bear!!! LOL
Otsi the iceman had ZERO% Neanderthal DNA people!!! do not let this piece of shiit fool you!
First I will show you the link to the blog where the lying degenerate monkey got this information from LOL
NOW HERE ARE THE FACTS!!!! OTZI POSSESSED ZERO% NEANDERTHAL DNA AND THIS DEGENERATE MONKEY IS JUST SEEKING TO CREATE ANOTHER CLYDE WINTERS TO INFECT THE WEB WITH MORE MISINFORMATION!
This post has been very useful at our site! We spent the entire day talking about this, dessiminating the information, and laughing at the pink monkey tell provable lies! LOL We were just waiting for this stringy haired pink assed monkey to chime in on this clown show with its fake Mike111 and Clyde Winters names! And here we have this abomination just pulling a number out of its ass and excaliming that otzi the Iceman had 5.5% Neanderthal DNA. I mean the monkey just picked a made up number and stated it as fact! LOL
The ccomplete genome of Otzi the iceman has been publidhed this year and Otzi the iceman possessed ZERO% Neanderthal admixrure
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neanderthal Site map Greatest concentration: France Most Eastern Neaderthal Site is in Shanidar, Iraq Most Southern Neaderthal Site is in Tabun, Israel (also in Gibraltar ) Most Northern Neaderthal Site is in Germany Simlar to neaderthals was the Denisova hominin, dating to 40,000 years ago, was discovered in the Denisova Cave of the Altai mountains in southern Siberia in 2008
Finding out about our most recent common ancestor relies solely on inferences from the mtDNA of people living today. What if we could actually compare our mtDNA with mtDNA of a distant ancestor? This, in fact, has been done, with mtDNA from the bones of Neanderthals. Comparing mtDNA of these Neanderthals to mtDNA of living people from various continents, researchers have found that the Neanderthals' mtDNA is not more closely related to that of people from any one continent over another. This was an unwelcome finding for anthropologists who believe that there was some interbreeding between Neanderthals and early modern humans living in Europe (which might have helped to explain why modern Europeans possess some Neanderthal-like features); these particular anthropologists instead would have expected the Neanderthals' mtDNA to be more similar to that of modern Europeans than to that of other peoples. Moreover, the researchers determined that the common ancestor to Neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens lived as long as 500,000 years ago, well before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of modern humans. This suggests (though it does not prove) that Neanderthals went extinct without contributing to the gene pool of any modern humans.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there different fazes/ stages of the Neanderthal?
Or did they remain the same "anthropomorphic" during all their existents?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neanderthal originated in Africa and then migrated into Eurasia. This makes Neanderthal an African.
This article is attempting to propagate the idea that Neanderthal is the ProtoAsian/European type. For researchers to maintain that everyone has Neanderthal genes but Africans is a Joke.
It is pure mythology. If the Neanderthal originated in Africa, and many remained there how could they have avoided mating with other Africans when they would have looked the same as other Africans.
How and when did the Neanderthal become diverse racially when they were originally African and were replaced by other Africans.
Let's look at the evolution of homo sapiens.
The Eves were also African
The Aurignacian people who replaced the Neanderthal looked like this
Below is the ancestor of Neanderthals
,
. Here is a picture of Neanderthal man
.
As you can see, there is little difference between the African ancestor of Neanderthals, and the Neanderthals themselves.
Here we have Cro-Magnon or Aurignacian man
None of these homonids look like Asians or Europeans. Think for a minute.
Europeans
Asians
If Neanderthal was clearly an African, like the people who replaced them, "How can Neanderthal have evolved into Europeans and Asians, who clearly do not look African?"
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic