posted
Direct radiocarbon dating and genetic analyses on the purported Neanderthal mandible from the Monti Lessini (Italy). - Talamo S
Abstract Anatomically modern humans replaced Neanderthals in Europe around 40,000 years ago. The demise of the Neanderthals and the nature of the possible relationship with anatomically modern humans has captured our imagination and stimulated research for more than a century now. Recent chronological studies suggest a possible overlap between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans of more than 5,000 years. Analyses of ancient genome sequences from both groups have shown that they interbred multiple times, including in Europe. A potential place of interbreeding is the notable Palaeolithic site of Riparo Mezzena in Northern Italy. In order to improve our understanding of prehistoric occupation at Mezzena, we analysed the human mandible and several cranial fragments from the site using radiocarbon dating, ancient DNA, ZooMS and isotope analyses. We also performed a more detailed investigation of the lithic assemblage of layer I. ****Surprisingly**** we found that the Riparo Mezzena mandible is*** NOT*** from a Neanderthal but belonged to an anatomically modern human. Furthermore, we found ****no evidence for the presence of Neanderthal remains ***among 11 of the 13 cranial and post-cranial fragments re-investigated in this studyPosts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
These Europeans are chronic liars. They just can't help themselves. To the newbies. What is the paper about? They are EXPOSING the lies perpetuated by other European researchers that humans and Neanderthal interbreed in Mezzena cave. Not only that they are stating that the research was possibly falsified. To what end? Your guess is as good as mine. Lol!
---- ---- QUOTEs but they have not yet been substantiated by palaeogenetic data5,6. One example is the late Mousterian site of Riparo Mezzena in northern
Results For this study, 10 of the 13 human specimens retrieved by Angelo Pasa were made available to us by the Natural History Museum of Verona. In addition, we were able to analyse a second post-cranial human fragment (IGVR 63017-5/MLS 3)19 belonging to the Riparo Mezzena collection, which was not described in Corrain15 and was probably identified during a recent re-examination of the faunal assemblage of Riparo Mezzena23. The two bone fragments that were not analysed in this study, which include MLS 1 (IGVR 63017-7 or IGVR 63017-9)7,24, used in most palaeogenetic studies,**** had NOT been returned to the above-mentioned Museum.***
mandible IGVR 203334, see Supplementary Information) are unlikely to belong to a Neanderthal, given that this group became extinct long before the Holocene
The doubts raised by the radiocarbon dating and isotope analyses on IGVR 63017-4 were among the reasons that pushed us to undertake ZooMS and DNA analyses on the purported Neanderthal bone fragments from Riparo Mezzena.
Based on these results we conclude that IGVR 20334 (the mandible), IGVR 63017-15, IGVR 63017-3 and IGVR 63017-14 carry authentic ancient mtDNA of the modern human type
The discrepancies between the results of the genetic analyses performed here and in previous studies8,19 are**** striking***. The fact that we did not detect authentic ancient DNA in MLS 3 using the most sensitive method currently available33 is difficult to reconcile with the presence of ancient DNA in the specimen. Moreover, the mandible, which exhibits poor but detectable levels of ancient DNA preservation in our analysis, carries mtDNA of the modern human type. It is important to note that previous work relied on amplification of short stretches of DNA by PCR, an approach that is much less sensitive than current library preparation and high-throughput sequencing techniques33. Unlike PCR, library preparation allows molecules to be sequenced in their entirety, thereby providing information on DNA degradation patterns that lend evidence to the ancient origin of the modern human sequences retrieved from the Mezzena mandible. Our results highlight once more that PCR-based ancient DNA analyses are prone to contamination43. ***Yet,*** the case of Mezzena is unusual in that contamination must have been **REPEATEDLY** introduced through PCR products of Neanderthal DNA rather than genomic DNA from modern humans. It is unfortunate that MLS 1, the specimen studied most extensively by means of genetics16,18,20, is not available for repeated analyses. The fact that the published mtDNA sequence of MLS 1 differs from the sequences of other Neanderthals44 does not per se prove its authenticity. The MLS 1 sequence was reconstructed from several short PCR products and it is conceivable that it represents a patchwork of contaminant Neanderthal and modern human sequences rather than a genuine Neanderthal sequence. Our findings thus put a question mark over all previous genetic results obtained from the Mezzena remains. Based on the concordant results of the suite of techniques employed in our study, we do not support the hypothesis put forward by Condemi and collaborators8 that Riparo Mezzena and its surroundings was an area of long chronological overlap, where interbreeding between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans took place. New excavations are required to gain a better understanding of crucial periods, such as the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition. If materials from sites excavated long ago (e.g. Riparo Mezzena) are to be used to provide additional data on these complex phases of our evolutionary history, then it should only be done using the whole suite of state-of-the-art methods at our disposal.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Furthermore. The two ancient bone fragments were NEVER returned. These two fragmenst were used to speculate that humans and Neanderthal mated in Italy. EUROPEANS....and their lies and deception
-------------------- 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 don't know why it took you so long to realize that this mess was supported by multi-regionalist. The moment the media reported that Everyone but 'subSaharan' Africans are mixed with Neanderthals I knew what was up.
But props and collar pops to you xyyman you uncovered another gem. This lie right here is above my head.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman go: Direct radiocarbon dating and genetic analyses on the purported Neanderthal mandible from the Monti Lessini (Italy). - Talamo S
lithic assemblage
Interesting, so what lithic assemblage are they talking about? Are there any crumbs?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: These Europeans are chronic liars.
you are a racist.
So the black authors of the article exposed how Europeans are chronic liars?
Oh wait a minute, the authors were European... and they're exposing Europeans...how stupid as hell
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always said ....."there are some good white people ".
-------------------- 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
To anyone who did not get it. The researchers who published that humans and Neanderthal admixed using bones from Mezzena cave did NOT return the specimen to the Museum AFTER they completed their research and published. Why? So no one can verify or duplicate their results!!! Lol! Tsk! Tsk! SMH. This new group of researchers (white! @Lioness) went ahead and re-analyzed the remaining bone fragments and expose that the Neanderthal /Human mating hypothesis in the cave was not only wrong but ‘deliberately’ falsified.
-------------------- 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: [QB] To anyone who did not get it. The researchers who published that humans and Neanderthal admixed using bones from Mezzena cave did NOT return the specimen to the Museum AFTER they completed their research and published. Why?
You posted an article that deputes the results using more advanced techniques. That was based on specimens other than the two fragments not returned. Therefore the conclusions were not dependent on those two fragments due to there were 10 other specimens rendering your conspiracy theory mute.
Possible Interbreeding in Late Italian Neanderthals?
New Data from the Mezzena Jaw (Monti Lessini, Verona, Italy) Silvana Condemi , Aurélien Mounier, Paolo Giunti, Martina Lari, David Caramelli, Laura Longo Published: March 27, 2013
In this light, we can interpret the position of the Mezzena mandible which stands within the modern human shape space, while presenting strong shape similarities with some Neanderthal specimens. Such a conflicting taxonomical position is not surprising, considering the geological age of the mandible [30]. Indeed, numerous late Neanderthals such as Spy 1, Saint Césaire and the Near-East mandibles Amud 1 and Tabun II possess hints of a chin (i.e. tuber symphyseo) though not a true modern human morphology [37], [51]. Late Neanderthals lived in area where AMHs might have been already present [2], [23], [52], while the Levantine fossils are displaying a less derived Neanderthal morphology [35], [36].
Therefore, in our view, this change in morphology of the mandibular chin among the fossils of Mezzena and other late Neanderthals could have been the result of a small degree of interbreeding with AMHs. We must nevertheless keep in mind that this data cannot exclude the possibility that the estimated genetic admixture between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis might be due to a sub-structure of an ancient African ancestor of archaic human and present-day human populations [53],or a more complex model recently published [54].
________________________
[53]
Effect of ancient population structure on the degree of polymorphism shared between modern human populations and ancient hominins Anders Eriksson1 and Andrea Manica1
Abstract Recent comparisons between anatomically modern humans and ancient genomes of other hominins have raised the tantalizing, and hotly debated, possibility of hybridization. Although several tests of hybridization have been devised, they all rely on the degree to which different modern populations share genetic polymorphisms with the ancient genomes of other hominins. However, spatial population structure is expected to generate genetic patterns similar to those that might be attributed to hybridization. To investigate this problem, we take Neanderthals as a case study, and build a spatially explicit model of the shared history of anatomically modern humans and this hominin. We show that the excess polymorphism shared between Eurasians and Neanderthals is compatible with scenarios in which no hybridization occurred, and is strongly linked to the strength of population structure in ancient populations. Thus, we recommend caution in inferring admixture from geographic patterns of shared polymorphisms, and argue that future attempts to investigate ancient hybridization between humans and other hominins should explicitly account for population structure.
Since the Neanderthal genome was published, another ancient genome has been recovered from a previously undescribed hominin from the Denisova caves (23). Comparisons with a wide range of modern populations revealed an excess of shared polymorphisms between this hominin and Australians and Melanesians, which has been interpreted as a sign of recent admixture (23, 24). Lack of knowledge on the past distribution and exact taxonomic affinity of Denisovans prevents us from quantifying the role ancient population structure played in creating similarities between modern humans and this hominin. However, our Neanderthal results suggest that ancient population structure could be an important determinant of spatial patterns of genetic overlap in this case also.
In conclusion, we urge caution in inferring recent admixture from geographic differences in genetic overlap between ancient hominins and modern-day populations. Though we do not claim that anatomically modern humans never admixed with other hominins, our results imply that current evidence for such admixture events is inconclusive at best. Future tests, to be convincing, will need to show that the genetic patterns used to invoke hybridization cannot be explained by population structure, for which there is both genetic (28⇓⇓–31) and archaeological evidence (27, 28). A key step toward such evidence will be the addition of ancient genomes of modern humans and other hominins from multiple locations, because they will allow reconstruction of ancient population structure and its possible effects on the genetic patterns in modern humans.
quote:
Direct radiocarbon dating and genetic analyses on the purported Neanderthal mandible from the Monti Lessini (Italy) Sahra Talamo
about 2% of Neanderthal ancestry is detected in the genomes of all present-day human populations outside of Africa
no researchers that say Neanderthals were smarter and 2% admixture is next to nothing so who even cares?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ See! You can do good work Lioness. Good research and quotes!
It is not a “conspiracy theory” when they imply admixture and do not return the samples! Admittedly Condemi et al did suggest it could be “sub-structure” and NOT admixture.
--- Quote: You posted an article that deputes the results using more advanced techniques. That was based on specimens other than the two fragments not returned. Therefore the conclusions were not dependent on those two fragments due to there were 10 other specimens rendering your conspiracy theory mute.
Quote: Possible Interbreeding in Late Italian Neanderthals?
New Data from the Mezzena Jaw (Monti Lessini, Verona, Italy) Silvana Condemi , Aurélien Mounier, Paolo Giunti, Martina Lari, David Caramelli, Laura Longo Published: March 27, 2013
Therefore, in our view, this change in morphology of the mandibular chin among the fossils of Mezzena and other late Neanderthals could have been the result of a small degree of interbreeding with AMHs. We must nevertheless keep in mind that this data cannot exclude the possibility that the estimated genetic admixture between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis might be due to a sub-structure of an ancient African ancestor of archaic human and present-day human populations [53],or a more complex model recently published [54].
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
More lies being exposed. They would not release the data for independent analysis. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Ha!
==== Quote No evidence for unknown archaic ancestry in South Asia Pontus Skoglund1,2
Genomic studies have documented a contribution of archaic Neanderthals and Denisovans to non-Africans1,2. Recently Mondal et al.3 published a major dataset—the largest whole genome sequencing study of diverse South Asians to date—including 60 mainland groups and 10 indigenous Andamanese. They reported analyses claiming that nearly all South Asians harbor ancestry from an unknown archaic human population that is neither Neanderthal nor Denisovan. However, the statistics cited in support of this conclusion do not replicate in other data sets, and ***in fact contradict the conclusion.***
One possible explanation for the skew that the authors observe3 is batch artifacts, reflecting differences in laboratory or computer processing between the data newly reported by Mondal et al., and the data from non-Indians used for comparison10. Separate processing is known to be able to cause correlation of errors within datasets, and this could explain why the newly reported South Asian genomes appear (artifactually) to share fewer alleles with other modern humans. However, the data used by Mondal et al. have not been made available for independent reanalysis, and without this, a definitive explanation is not possible. Whatever the explanation, our analyses contradict the claim of unknown archaic ancestry in South Asians.
-------------------- 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
Quote: Introduction It is widely accepted that modern non-African humans carry a few percent of Neanderthal DNA as a legacy of historical inter-breeding 1-3. The original inferences were based on higher than expected levels of base-sharing between Neanderthals and non-Africans. This pattern was subsequently reinforced by analyses of the size of introgressed fragments 4, analysis of the Denisovan genome 5 and targeted analyses of specific individuals 6 and genes 7. The latter two are convincing but inferences of the more general patterns explicitly assume that mutation rate is constant 1,8. In fact, human mutation rate likely varies between populations 9 and this variation covaries with heterozygosity (heterozygote instability, HI) 10, a pattern also reported recently in plants 11. Consequently, the large loss of heterozygosity that humans suffered while migrating out of Africa lowered the mutation rate in non-Africans 10, causing non-Africans to be more related than Africans both to our common ancestor and to related lineages like Neanderthals. In view of this I decided to conduct a series of tests aimed at distinguishing between Neanderthal introgression and mutation slowdown.
-------------------- 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
So. Paabo and Greene et al are being exposed as liars. Lies! Lies! and more lies!
QUOTE:
The signal of introgression is independent of Neanderthal sequences. Mutation slowdown predicts that the ABBA-BABA signal is an inherent property of modern humans, arising through a higher African mutation rate, so will be present regardless of the outgroups. I therefore conducted an ABBA-BABA analysis, substituting the Neanderthal genome with ancestral human alleles, AA, as inferred from a panel of primates by the 1000 genomes project, i.e. H1-H2-AA-CMP. To prevent any possible spill-over signal, all informative Neanderthal sites that contributed to the original ABBA-BABA signal were excluded. The resulting ABBA-BABA signal is even stronger than for H1-H2-NEA-CMP (Fig 2). The presence of a signal that not only remains but actually increases in strength when Neanderthal information is excluded indicates that much or all of the signal is unrelated to Neanderthal introgression and requires an alternative explanation (Supplementary material 2).
-----
The quantity of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans: a reanalysis relaxing the assumption of constant mutation rate. William Amos Department of Zoology Downing Street Cambridge CB2 3EJ
-------------------- 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
Are you suggesting they showing results from an ancient African instead of neanderthal?so how did the maasai show neanderthal DNA if mixture never occurred.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. all African show supposed "Neanderthal" Admixture not only Maasai. Cited already.
Keep in mind when the thesis of no Neanderthal admixture in Africans was proposed they used only ONE African population ie YRI. I believe they chose only ONE person from each group to build their that thesis.
2. No, there wasn't any sexual contact and mating between AMH and Neanderthal. Babujani et al. It is , yes, ancient 'African" population ie substructure related to BOTH Neanderthal and AMH responsible for the relatedness between OOA and Neanderthal.
3. As I stated many times. YRI is a young population. that is why more "Neanderthal" admixture is found in 'older' North Africans compared to younger YRI.
4. Archaic "admixture" is found in Pygmies and Khoi-san...tic! tic! tic!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also Keep in mind NO Neanderthal admixture is found in Basal Eurasian (Lazaridis et al). Do you understand ...why?
Simple. This is not rocket science. As Lazaridis proposed. First, "basal Eurasian" is recent African and part of the same stock as younger Africans. The older OOA carried and older archaic structure (wrongfuly identified as Neanderthal as this new paper suggests). The emerging Neolithics/Basal Eurasian encountered these Older OOA. That is why East Asians which is most geographically distant from the Neolithic Africans carry more "Neanderthal Admixture".
-------------------- 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
Lol! Paabo and Greene are on the ropes. Defending their lies and racism.
------- QUOTE: Conclusions. The idea of widespread interbreeding between modern humans and other hominids has been broadly and rapidly accepted, I am sure in part because the idea of carrying their legacy is undeniably romantic. Another key element is that, so far, a plausible alternative hypothesis has not been available. Mounting evidence in favour of HI offers an alternative explanation for many or most of the observations used to infer introgression, from differential patterns of base sharing to changes in apparent block size. The HI-mediated mutation slowdown hypothesis fits better with a range of direct tests of fit in which opposing predictions of the two hypotheses are compared. Consequently, there is now a clear need to explain why mutation slowdown is so strongly favoured before the idea of a widespread Neanderthal legacy can be considered proven.
-------------------- 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
To the newbies. To summarize. What the author is saying is that Paabo and Greene were WRONG. There was no Neanderthal admixture with AMH. It is only a romantic(delusion) within the minds of Europeans that quickly gained popularity when it was published.
Paabo and Greene LIED!!!
-------------------- 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: To the newbies. To summarize. What the author is saying is that Paabo and Greene were WRONG. There was no Neanderthal admixture with AMH. It is only a romantic(delusion) within the minds of Europeans that quickly gained popularity when it was published.
Paabo and Greene LIED!!!
Both of these researchers belong to the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany. They are trying to re-establish the multiregionsal theory .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Lol! Paabo and Greene are on the ropes. Defending their lies and racism.
------- QUOTE: Conclusions. The idea of widespread interbreeding between modern humans and other hominids has been broadly and rapidly accepted, I am sure in part because the idea of carrying their legacy is undeniably romantic. Another key element is that, so far, a plausible alternative hypothesis has not been available. Mounting evidence in favour of HI offers an alternative explanation for many or most of the observations used to infer introgression, from differential patterns of base sharing to changes in apparent block size. The HI-mediated mutation slowdown hypothesis fits better with a range of direct tests of fit in which opposing predictions of the two hypotheses are compared. Consequently, there is now a clear need to explain why mutation slowdown is so strongly favoured before the idea of a widespread Neanderthal legacy can be [b]considered proven.
quote: The quantity of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans: a reanalysis relaxing the assumption of constant mutation rate. William Amos Department of Zoology Downing Street Cambridge CB2 3EJ
In terms of explaining variation in block size, the HI model remains speculative and difficult to test due to lack of knowledge about key parameters.
First, my analyses are constrained both by the populations covered by the 1000 genomes project, which do not include representatives from Oceania, and refer mainly to broad patterns linked to Neanderthals. As such, they have no particular implications either for the Denisovan story 26, nor for anecdotal observations of specific individuals or genes. Indeed, evidence for occasional interbreeding events seems rather strong and, if the resulting offspring survived and bred, this may well have led to the selective retention of particular alleles that proved beneficial in a modern background.
therefore no lying, he's just proposing further research and offering alternative hypothesis and acknowledges evidence for occasional interbreeding events seems rather strong
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are good .....at misdirecting . But, no!!!!! Understand the context
"Indeed, evidence for occasional interbreeding events seems rather strong and,"
they are talking morphology NOT genetics. They are talking the supposed amh/Neanderthal offspring discovered in Spain (?) Iirc.
They concluded that their data do not confirm Neanderthal/amh mating .....based upon genetics.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] You are good .....at misdirecting . But, no!!!!! Understand the context
"Indeed, evidence for occasional interbreeding events seems rather strong and,"
they are talking morphology NOT genetics.
stop misdirecting. I will highlight the type indicating that genetics is being discussed not morphology
quote:
First, my analyses are constrained both by the populations covered by the 1000 genomes project, which do not include representatives from Oceania, and refer mainly to broad patterns linked to Neanderthals. As such, they have no particular implications either for the Denisovan story 26, nor for anecdotal observations of specific individuals or genes. Indeed, evidence for occasional interbreeding events seems rather strong and, if the resulting offspring survived and bred, this may well have led to the selective retention of particular alleles that proved beneficial in a modern background.
so you are trying to hustle here. The whole context here is genes and no mention of morphology, stop playing games
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit. You are good at your job …of misleading and mis-directing. You had me distracted there for awhile. Lol! You had me second guessing myself. Lol!
But ------------------ Quotes : In view of this I decided to conduct a series of tests aimed at distinguishing between Neanderthal introgression and mutation slowdown.
Crucially, the mutation slowdown model makes a range of predictions that can be used to help distinguish it FROM introgression.
Perhaps unexpectedly, in every test I applied the mutation slowdown model offers a better, often unambiguously better, fit to the data than the Neanderthal introgression model. My results therefore appear to be at odds with previous studies, a conflict that can be resolved in three main ways.
First, my analyses are constrained both by the populations covered by the 1000 genomes project, which do not include representatives from Oceania, and refer mainly to broad patterns linked to Neanderthals. As such, they have no particular implications either for the Denisovan ***story*** 26, nor for *****anecdotal***** observations of specific individuals or genes. Indeed, evidence for occasional interbreeding events seems rather strong and, if the resulting offspring survived and bred
-------------------- 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 --- 1998, this discovery of an early Upper Paleolithic human burial at Abrigo do Lagar Velho, by the team led by pre-history archeologist João Zilhão, provided evidence of early modern humans from the west of theIberian Peninsula. The remains, the largely complete skeleton of an approximately 4-year-old child, buried with pierced shell and red ochre, is dated to ca. 24,500 years BP.[1]
This (morphological) mosaic indicates admixture between late archaic and early modern humans in Iberia, refuting hypotheses of complete replacement of the Neanderthals by early modern humans and underlining the complexities of the cultural and biological processes and events that were involved in modern human emergence.[1]
This was contested by several scientists including Prof. Dr. C.P.E. Zollikofer of theUniversity of Zurich who concluded the skeleton does ***not*** reveal Neanderthal affinities.[
-------------------- 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
Discovery of Neanderthal Man in Malta ARTHUR KEITH Of the various problems relating to extinct forms of man, none is of greater interest than that which concerns Homo neanderthalensis. This peculiar and extinct species of man appeared in Europe about the commencement of the Mousterian cultural period, and all traces of him vanish towards the close of that period. Where he came from and where he finally disappeared we do not know, hence every additional fact we can collect about him is of value. So far his remains have been found at Gibraltar (1848), the Rhine valley (1857), Belgium, the Dordogne, and Croatia. The peculiar teeth of this race were reported from the Mousterian strata of a cave in Jersey by Dr. R. R. Marett in 1911. Excavations in the cave of Ghar Dalam, in the south-eastern corner of Malta, carried out by Dr. Giuseppe Despott, curator of the Natural History Museum of the University of Malta, working for a research committee of the British Association, has brought to light the remains of Neanderthal man in that island, thus extending the distribution of this species to another continent; for, in a zoological sense, Malta is African rather than European.
It is true that so far only two teeth have been found—a first upper molar and a milk molar—but those who are familiar with the characteristic form of the molar teeth of Neanderthal man will have no hesitation in assenting to the truth of Dr. Despott’s discovery. I append Dr. Despott’s photograph of the two Neanderthal teeth, giving for comparison photographs of the teeth of a modern type of man found in the Neolithic strata of Ghar Dalam, overlying the strata from which the Neanderthal teeth were derived (Fig. 1).
-------------------- 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 |
Abstract Western Eurasia yielded a rich Middle (MP) and Late Pleistocene (LP) fossil record documenting the evolution of the Neandertals that can be analyzed in light of recently acquired paleogenetical data, an abundance of archeological evidence, and a well-known environmental context. Their origin likely relates to an episode of recolonization of Western Eurasia by hominins of African origin carrying the Acheulean technology into Europe around 600 ka. An enhancement of both glacial and interglacial phases may have played a crucial role in this event, as well as in the subsequent evolutionary history of the Western Eurasian populations. In addition to climatic adaptations and an increase in encephalization, genetic drift seems to have played a major role in their evolution. To date, a clear speciation event is not documented, and the most likely scenario for the fixation of Neandertal characteristics seems to be an accretion of features along the second half of the MP. Although a separation time for the African and Eurasian populations is difficult to determine, it certainly predates OIS 11 as phenotypic Neandertal features are documented as far back as and possibly before this time. It is proposed to use the term “Homo rhodesiensis” to designate the ***large-brained hominins*** ancestral to H. sapiens in Africa and at the root of the Neandertals in Europe, and to use the term “Homo neanderthalensis” to designate all of the specimens carrying derived metrical or non-metrical features used in the definition of the LP Neandertals.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There problem is the delusion that Europe is really a continent and somehow it is unique. Thinking somehow there were barrier keeping African peoples out of Europe. THERE NEVER WAS A BARRIER!!! EVER!!
Even the Neanderthals came from Africa. DELUSIONAL LIARS!!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Morocco,Malta etc
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So ..Green et al was lying and may have inadvertently falsified his data….yet the study is referenced all over the web and other studies. Tsk! Tsk!
--- Quote:
Drafting Human Ancestry: What Does the Neanderthal Genome Tell Us about Hominid Evolution? Commentary on Green et al. (2010) - Michael Hofreiter The University of York, - At the end of 2006, two publications reported the first nuclear DNA sequences from Neanderthals (Green et al. 2006; Noonan et al. 2006). One of the studies (Noonan et al. 2006) was based on directly cloning Neanderthal DNA extract into a bacterial library followed by sequencing thousands of clones, a method that had previously been used for sequencing about 27,000 bp of cave bear nuclear DNA (Noonan et al. 2005),
Despite the fact that both studies used aliquots of the ****SAME**** Neanderthal extract, they arrived at quite different conclusions with regard to biological questions such as the time of divergence or the amount of gene flow between modern humans and Neanderthals. Whereas Noonan et al. found no evidence for gene flow from modern humans into Neanderthals, Green et al. suggested that a substantial amount of gene flow had taken place. Green et al. also suggested a
divergence time of modern humans and Neanderthals that was not only substantially younger than that obtained by Noonan et al. but also at odds with almost all interpretations of the fossil record. Interestingly, both discrepancies are readily explained if contamination with modern human DNA affected the results by Green et al. It therefore came not as a big surprise that a ***re-analysis*** of both data sets concluded that the data from Green et al. were heavily affected by contamination, which may have comprised as much as**** 80% ****of the data set (Wall and Kim 2007).
Quote:
Although Green et al. argue that the contamination level in their original data set is lower than claimed by Wall and Kim, they ***concede*** that up to 40% of the data may consist of contaminating modern human DNA (Green et al. 2009, 2010). This result created somewhat of a paradox: the data obtained by Noonan et al. seemed reliable, but their methodology would not allow obtaining a substantial part of a Neanderthal genome
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman what would the motivation be for fabricating Neanderthal admixture in Humans?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
What does all that have to do with the alleged superiority of the “white race”? A couple of things.
It is part of the folklore of white supremacy that “white” represents modernity, intelligence and virtue. The crucial corollary: color represents the primitive, dull and dangerous. One manifestation of this folklore is the representation of Neanderthals—inferior because they are extinct—as hairy and dark.
Science says otherwise. Working backwards through the genetic repertoire of modern humans tells us that while Neanderthals were hirsute, they also brought to the genetic table red hair, blonde hair and fair skin. Neanderthals were white people. If they were avatars of the colorless master race, then how could they have gone extinct?
EDIT: Originally answered under a question that had as details that racists claim that non-Africans are superior to Africans because of their Neanderthal DNA.
Racist people bring up all kinds of pseudoscience babble in order to give their prejudice an aura of "respectability". It is mildly amusing to witness the "moving the goal posts" that they engage in. At one point, Neanderthals were considered to be inferior brutes who perhaps did not even have language, and who were promptly wiped up, outcompeted and outsmarted by the more intelligent Homo sapiens. When new genomics data showed that all humans except for sub-Saharan Africans carry a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA, racists started spinning the presence of Neanderthal DNA as conferring some sort of superiority. It's actually quite pathetic
Are Europeans Neandertal? by Paul F. Taylor on September 18, 2006
Share:
The London Daily Telegraph reported in August 2006 that “People of European descent may be five percent Neanderthal.” The Telegraph was reporting the findings of a study group headed by Dr. Vincent Plagnol of the University of Southern California.
This group analyzed a grand total of 34 people from Utah. Some of these were of Northern or Western European descent and some were from the Yoruba people from West Africa. The researchers found anomalies in their comparisons of genetic information. They explained these by supposing that the Europeans’ genes were not simply from the supposed human ancestors migrating from Africa, but contained the DNA of another archaic human species-probably Neandertals.
-------------------- 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 |
EDIT: Originally answered under a question that had as details that racists claim that non-Africans are superior to Africans because of their Neanderthal DNA.
You have not shown an article where racists claim that non-Africans are superior to Africans because of their Neanderthal DNA.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman what would the motivation be for fabricating Neanderthal admixture in Humans?
-Reluctance to accept the fact that the multiregional hypothesis is falsehood, damn near in the realm of psuedoscience -Potential explainable mechanism behind eugenics. -potential opportunity to dissociate Africans with sophistication if they scored higher in NHDNA.. -fell flat- -potential to downplay genetic diversity in non-whites. -overall psuedo-scientific romanticism as explained earlier that those admixed are unique or extra special somehow
pressumed Neanderthal Admixture in european has kinda been hidden from the public eye... I'm thoroughly surprised at how much people didn't know of this who aren't geneticists or anthropologists of some sort. Until recently, that is.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman what would the motivation be for fabricating Neanderthal admixture in Humans? [/qb]
-Reluctance to accept the fact that the multiregional hypothesis is falsehood, damn near in the realm of psuedoscience
1-4% Neanderthal admixture has no impact on OOA hypothesis. There is no scientific article saying it does
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
-Potential explainable mechanism behind eugenics. -potential opportunity to dissociate Africans with sophistication if they scored higher in NHDNA.. -fell flat- -potential to downplay genetic diversity in non-whites. -overall psuedo-scientific romanticism as explained earlier that those admixed are unique or extra special somehow
that is all hypothetical strawmen. Show us an actual article that makes such claims.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
pressumed Neanderthal Admixture in european has kinda been hidden from the public eye... I'm thoroughly surprised at how much people didn't know of this who aren't geneticists or anthropologists of some sort. Until recently, that is. [/qb]
So now after making the argument that that Neanderthal ancestry could be used to argue superiority now you're saying it is not well known
but then you ad "until recently" covering all bases. It is only recently that there have been genetic analysis
Why aren't all the racists promoting this more? Where are the racist articles on Neanderthals?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lioness: ...what would the motivation be for fabricating Neanderthal admixture in Humans?
I gave you five potential motivations...Pick one, You wan't me to back up motivations with an article? ...gtfo
Like, what are you even talking about here?
quote:but then you ad "until recently" covering all bases. It is only recently that there have been genetic analysis
Why aren't all the racists promoting this more? Where are the racist articles on Neanderthals?
...and you have the nerve to bring up "strawman," with this logical mess? rephrase your initial question or tek weh yuh have.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm not doing this **** with you...
quote:Lioness: ...what would the motivation be for fabricating Neanderthal admixture in Humans?
I gave you five potential motivations...Pick one, You wan't me to back up motivations with an article? ...gtfo
Like, what are you even talking about here?
quote:but then you ad "until recently" covering all bases. It is only recently that there have been genetic analysis
Why aren't all the racists promoting this more? Where are the racist articles on Neanderthals?
...and you have the nerve to bring up "strawman," with this logical mess? rephrase your initial question or tek weh yuh have.
You came up with some the potential motivations. Yet my point is that people are not writing articles using these arguments but xyyman likes to pretend he's fighting something. It's because even racists realize how weak such arguments are
And speculative potential for misuse about this very small 1-4% proposed admixture does not mean there has been no Neanderthal/ Denisova admixture in humans
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some brief observations, before we get to the "main course" of this post: Eurasians appear substantially Neandertal/Denisovan-admixed when SNPs polymorphic in Africans and monomorphic in Eurasians are used. I can think of no other explanation than archaic African admixture for this finding. Papuans appear Denisovan-admixed across the board. For the GLOBAL set, population differences in Neandertal admixture are all non-signficant. Given that the GLOBAL set includes SNPs likely to have existed in the ancestral modern humans, this indicates a fairly symmetrical relationship of to Neandertals.
This guy popped the HGDP (SNP) samples used in study by patterson et al 2012 and looked at markers polymorphic to Africans and Monomorphic in Euros... It gets crazy when he flips the script and pops polymorphic non African SNPs...
That's right: Mbuti Pygmies are actually closer to Denisovans than Eurasians over the subset of SNPs that are polymorphic in Eurasians and monomorphic in the Mbuti.
Genotypes SNPs for the HGDP can be found here thanks to patterson and dem boiis, ftp://ftp.cephb.fr/ (supp_10 !!)
PT.2 of his discovery http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/more-on-surprising-link-between.html ^ being that papuan had a high affinity for "denisovan admixture," SNP's ascertained in a Papuan individual was used to pretty much fully materialize the denisovan-African link... However being that this is old he has no clue that the link isn't due to admixture or interbreeding, more so than just early divergence.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
This moderate minor polygenesis seems plausible enough pending dispute from like sources or independent ESer critique.
The above post is a model for presenting data, analysis, not swathes of scissors and paste data mined tidbit text sheets.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: No, there wasn't any sexual contact and mating between AMH and Neanderthal. Babujani et al.
Lol. My dude? Really?
This is an example of a European lie—a very disgusting one at that. They made my man look like someone in a renaissance Italian painting with every step pinching his nose and lips and regressing more into teletubbie land. But what you're citing in your posts... I don't see any lies. Nor do I see what the fuss is about.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic