All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm

[Ravi]

For the reading comprehension challenged, that means that the interbreeding occurred over a long period of time that encompassed the entirety of human migration

Neanderthals, who left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago, evolved in what is now mainly France, Spain, Germany and Russia, and are thought to have survived until about 30,000 years ago.

Early modern humans left Africa about 80,000 to 50,000 years ago.

Modern humans carry Neanderthal DNA - UPI.com

So the window is between 30,000 and 80,000 years ago, not the entirety of human migration.

 

[editec]

Being WHITE -- So easy, even a caveman can do it.

Gee, this thread is fun!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does anyone else suspect that our resident racists think that this proves their theory that blacks are stupider than whites?

I need a comprehensive list. I know William Joyce , who else is racist?

 

[sparky]

ya can dress 'em up, butcha can't post 'em anywhere....

~S~

 

[rdean]

Do you really want to embarrass yourself again?

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at that, he understood more than you thought.

An Origin of the Species was specifically written to explain how species adapted to fill specific geographical niches, so it obviously discussed divergent evolution. That does not make it all of his theory.

As usual, you know less about this than the average 5th grader in Arkansas or Tennessee, yet you feel so superior to them and their parents.

From your link:

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[15] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[16] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

That is not a "theory", that is a "musing". Get it? "Suggesting" is not a theory. Darwin had "proof" of evolution which is why the "Theory of Evolution" really is a scientific theory.

Also, he was referring to Aristotle's idea of Spontaneous generation which had been around since about 300 BC.

It's something like, "Spontaneously, creatures can be created by nature from surrounding material". I don't know the exact words but that's close. Aristotle was talking about fully formed creatures, not single celled animals, springing from river mud.

Do you understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? Darwin did, and he was musing on why there is no evidence of chemicals forming complex organic chains and becoming living organisms in nature. His musing was that life consumed those chemicals, leaving no evidence of abiogenesis. He nonetheless believed that life began in a primordial soup, and that all life on Earth is descending from that first life form.

Darwin correctly separated abiogenesis and evolution because he could support one with evidence, and merely thought the other was reasonable. Many scientists have been working to prove that Darwin was correct about abiogenesis also, and all have, so far, failed.

He did, however, lay the basics for the evolution from simple to complex.

Tell me something, why is it that a man who believes in God is defending evolution and Darwin to an atheist? Are you so completely unable to admit that you are wrong that you are willing to argue that God exists simply to prove me wrong?

Like I said, "he was referring to Aristotle's idea of Spontaneous generation which had been around since about 300 BC".

I'm not responding to you anymore on this thread because you aren't making sense. I have no mystical nor occult beliefs. Not one. I have no belief in anything supernatural. In fact it's laughable to me. So I'm not sure what you are accusing me of. Have a nice day.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

For the reading comprehension challenged, that means that the interbreeding occurred over a long period of time that encompassed the entirety of human migration

Neanderthals, who left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago, evolved in what is now mainly France, Spain, Germany and Russia, and are thought to have survived until about 30,000 years ago.

Early modern humans left Africa about 80,000 to 50,000 years ago.

Modern humans carry Neanderthal DNA - UPI.com

So the window is between 30,000 and 80,000 years ago, not the entirety of human migration.

Ware did they get Neanderthal DNA ?

 

[Ravi]

Fossils.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Fossils.

Here is some stuff on what you speak of. The nitty gritty of it all fails to interest me enough to read it all. I was always under the assumption that the DNA would degrade and not be testable. I will read this all tomorrow. I just woke up and dont feel like working the brain to much. Must be my inner neanderthal coming out.




http://www.454.com/downloads/news-events/mtDNANeandertalarticle.pdf

 

[Ravi]

It does degrade but it can last for thousands of years, depending on how well preserved the bones are....

 

[Momanohedhunter]

It does degrade but it can last for thousands of years, depending on how well preserved the bones are....

Wonder if they have done any on Otsi. He wasn't a neanderthal. I know that the food foung in his gut, and pollen on his clothes was viable. Neet stuff, and I have no shame for having cave man DNA. If you want to see some real cool shit, you should look into there tools. They had an appreciation for fine tools, and I dont think they get enough credit for there ingenuity or creativity.

 

[konradv]

It does degrade but it can last for thousands of years, depending on how well preserved the bones are....

Wonder if they have done any on Otsi. He wasn't a neanderthal. I know that the food foung in his gut, and pollen on his clothes was viable. Neet stuff, and I have no shame for having cave man DNA. If you want to see some real cool shit, you should look into there tools. They had an appreciation for fine tools, and I dont think they get enough credit for there ingenuity or creativity.

Otzi is too recent to be a Neanderthal, being from about 3,300 BCE. While Europe at the time was still a totally wild and uncivilized place, civilization was beginning to take hold in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Ötzi the Iceman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Momanohedhunter]

It does degrade but it can last for thousands of years, depending on how well preserved the bones are....

Wonder if they have done any on Otsi. He wasn't a neanderthal. I know that the food foung in his gut, and pollen on his clothes was viable. Neet stuff, and I have no shame for having cave man DNA. If you want to see some real cool shit, you should look into there tools. They had an appreciation for fine tools, and I dont think they get enough credit for there ingenuity or creativity.

Otzi is too recent to be a Neanderthal, being from about 3,300 BCE. While Europe at the time was still a totally wild and uncivilized place, civilization was beginning to take hold in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Ötzi the Iceman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know Otzi (thanks for correcting the spelling) was not a neanderthal. I was just wondering if anything new has come from studying his body. There are also the body's they pull from the peat bogs in England and Europe. I know they are young, just wondering if they have done any DNA stuff with them.

 

[Ravi]

We have bog people, too.

Since its discovery in 1982, this small, peat-bottomed pond situated roughly between Cape Canaveral and Disney World in east-central Florida has offered up no fewer than 168 burials. Unlike their European counterparts, these long-dead individuals have no skin remaining; they are skeletons. But they are otherwise so well-preserved that, when unearthed, over half of them still contained brains—brains that once held the thoughts and emotions of a prehistoric people.

NOVA | America's Bog People

 

[konradv]

Wonder if they have done any on Otsi. He wasn't a neanderthal. I know that the food foung in his gut, and pollen on his clothes was viable. Neet stuff, and I have no shame for having cave man DNA. If you want to see some real cool shit, you should look into there tools. They had an appreciation for fine tools, and I dont think they get enough credit for there ingenuity or creativity.

Otzi is too recent to be a Neanderthal, being from about 3,300 BCE. While Europe at the time was still a totally wild and uncivilized place, civilization was beginning to take hold in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Ötzi the Iceman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know Otzi (thanks for correcting the spelling) was not a neanderthal. I was just wondering if anything new has come from studying his body. There are also the body's they pull from the peat bogs in England and Europe. I know they are young, just wondering if they have done any DNA stuff with them.

Sorry, I read "wasn't he" instead of "he wasn't". I guess the lack of a ? should have given me a clue!!!

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Otzi is too recent to be a Neanderthal, being from about 3,300 BCE. While Europe at the time was still a totally wild and uncivilized place, civilization was beginning to take hold in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Ötzi the Iceman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know Otzi (thanks for correcting the spelling) was not a neanderthal. I was just wondering if anything new has come from studying his body. There are also the body's they pull from the peat bogs in England and Europe. I know they are young, just wondering if they have done any DNA stuff with them.

Sorry, I read "wasn't he" instead of "he wasn't". I guess the lack of a ? should have given me a clue!!!

Meh, I am not known for my proper use of syntax and spellin' words. My bad !

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the reading comprehension challenged, that means that the interbreeding occurred over a long period of time that encompassed the entirety of human migration

Neanderthals, who left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago, evolved in what is now mainly France, Spain, Germany and Russia, and are thought to have survived until about 30,000 years ago.

Early modern humans left Africa about 80,000 to 50,000 years ago.

Modern humans carry Neanderthal DNA - UPI.com

So the window is between 30,000 and 80,000 years ago, not the entirety of human migration.

What the fuck?

Is everyone having trouble reading just because I am arguing in favor of something left wingers think right wingers do not understand?

If modern humans left Africa 80,000 years ago, a date which has been disputed, and interbred with Neanderthals from that time until the disappeared, that was the entirety of human migration because, by that point in time, we had effectively reached everywhere we were going to reach. There were other waves of migration that occurred after that, but those were just humans replacing other humans.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From your link:

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[15] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[16] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

That is not a "theory", that is a "musing". Get it? "Suggesting" is not a theory. Darwin had "proof" of evolution which is why the "Theory of Evolution" really is a scientific theory.

Also, he was referring to Aristotle's idea of Spontaneous generation which had been around since about 300 BC.

It's something like, "Spontaneously, creatures can be created by nature from surrounding material". I don't know the exact words but that's close. Aristotle was talking about fully formed creatures, not single celled animals, springing from river mud.

Do you understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? Darwin did, and he was musing on why there is no evidence of chemicals forming complex organic chains and becoming living organisms in nature. His musing was that life consumed those chemicals, leaving no evidence of abiogenesis. He nonetheless believed that life began in a primordial soup, and that all life on Earth is descending from that first life form.

Darwin correctly separated abiogenesis and evolution because he could support one with evidence, and merely thought the other was reasonable. Many scientists have been working to prove that Darwin was correct about abiogenesis also, and all have, so far, failed.

He did, however, lay the basics for the evolution from simple to complex.

Tell me something, why is it that a man who believes in God is defending evolution and Darwin to an atheist? Are you so completely unable to admit that you are wrong that you are willing to argue that God exists simply to prove me wrong?

Like I said, "he was referring to Aristotle's idea of Spontaneous generation which had been around since about 300 BC".

I'm not responding to you anymore on this thread because you aren't making sense. I have no mystical nor occult beliefs. Not one. I have no belief in anything supernatural. In fact it's laughable to me. So I'm not sure what you are accusing me of. Have a nice day.

I am sorry if I am talking above your comprehension level.

Spontaneous generation had been disproved 200 years before Darwin, why would he feel a need to address it?

You are trying to argue that we interbred with Neanderthals after they disappeared. How is that not a mystical or magical belief?

 

[Ravi]

For the reading comprehension challenged, that means that the interbreeding occurred over a long period of time that encompassed the entirety of human migration

Neanderthals, who left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago, evolved in what is now mainly France, Spain, Germany and Russia, and are thought to have survived until about 30,000 years ago.

Early modern humans left Africa about 80,000 to 50,000 years ago.

Modern humans carry Neanderthal DNA - UPI.com

So the window is between 30,000 and 80,000 years ago, not the entirety of human migration.

What the fuck?

Is everyone having trouble reading just because I am arguing in favor of something left wingers think right wingers do not understand?

If modern humans left Africa 80,000 years ago, a date which has been disputed, and interbred with Neanderthals from that time until the disappeared, that was the entirety of human migration because, by that point in time, we had effectively reached everywhere we were going to reach. There were other waves of migration that occurred after that, but those were just humans replacing other humans.

Perhaps you should learn to be more precise.

Using projected rates of genetic mutation and data from the fossil record, the researchers suggest that the interbreeding happened about 60,000 years ago in the eastern Mediterranean and, more recently, about 45,000 years ago in eastern Asia. Those two events happened after the first H. sapiens had migrated out of Africa, says Long. His group didn't find evidence of interbreeding in the genomes of the modern African people included in the study.

The researchers suggest that the population from the first interbreeding went on to migrate to Europe, Asia and North America. Then the second interbreeding with an archaic population in eastern Asia further altered the genetic makeup of people in Oceania.

Neanderthals may have interbred with humans : Nature News

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Modern humans carry Neanderthal DNA - UPI.com

So the window is between 30,000 and 80,000 years ago, not the entirety of human migration.

What the fuck?

Is everyone having trouble reading just because I am arguing in favor of something left wingers think right wingers do not understand?

If modern humans left Africa 80,000 years ago, a date which has been disputed, and interbred with Neanderthals from that time until the disappeared, that was the entirety of human migration because, by that point in time, we had effectively reached everywhere we were going to reach. There were other waves of migration that occurred after that, but those were just humans replacing other humans.

Perhaps you should learn to be more precise.

Using projected rates of genetic mutation and data from the fossil record, the researchers suggest that the interbreeding happened about 60,000 years ago in the eastern Mediterranean and, more recently, about 45,000 years ago in eastern Asia. Those two events happened after the first H. sapiens had migrated out of Africa, says Long. His group didn't find evidence of interbreeding in the genomes of the modern African people included in the study.

The researchers suggest that the population from the first interbreeding went on to migrate to Europe, Asia and North America. Then the second interbreeding with an archaic population in eastern Asia further altered the genetic makeup of people in Oceania.

Neanderthals may have interbred with humans : Nature News

Still does not change the fact that it occurred throughout the entire history of human migration.

 

[rdean]

Do you understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? Darwin did, and he was musing on why there is no evidence of chemicals forming complex organic chains and becoming living organisms in nature. His musing was that life consumed those chemicals, leaving no evidence of abiogenesis. He nonetheless believed that life began in a primordial soup, and that all life on Earth is descending from that first life form.

Darwin correctly separated abiogenesis and evolution because he could support one with evidence, and merely thought the other was reasonable. Many scientists have been working to prove that Darwin was correct about abiogenesis also, and all have, so far, failed.

He did, however, lay the basics for the evolution from simple to complex.

Tell me something, why is it that a man who believes in God is defending evolution and Darwin to an atheist? Are you so completely unable to admit that you are wrong that you are willing to argue that God exists simply to prove me wrong?

Like I said, "he was referring to Aristotle's idea of Spontaneous generation which had been around since about 300 BC".

I'm not responding to you anymore on this thread because you aren't making sense. I have no mystical nor occult beliefs. Not one. I have no belief in anything supernatural. In fact it's laughable to me. So I'm not sure what you are accusing me of. Have a nice day.

I am sorry if I am talking above your comprehension level.

Spontaneous generation had been disproved 200 years before Darwin, why would he feel a need to address it?

You are trying to argue that we interbred with Neanderthals after they disappeared. How is that not a mystical or magical belief?

The Microbial World :: A look at all things small

Francesco Redi in 1668 with a classic experiment. Redi suspected that flies landing on the meat laid eggs that eventually grew into maggots. To test this idea he devised the experiment shown in Figure 1-20. Here he used three pieces of meat. One piece of meat was placed under a piece of paper. The flies could not lay eggs onto the meat and no maggots developed. The second piece was left in the open air, resulting in maggots. In the final test, a third piece of meat was overlaid with cheesecloth. The flies were able to lay the eggs into the cheesecloth and when this was removed no maggots developed. However, if the cheesecloth containing the eggs was placed on a fresh piece of meat, maggots developed, showing it was the eggs that "caused" flies and not spontaneous generation. This helped to end the debate about spontaneous generation for large organisms. However, spontaneous generation was so seductive a concept that even Redi believed it was possible in other circumstances.

------------------------------
Aristotle's idea of Spontaneous generation was actually put to bed by Louis Pasteur, a contemporary of Charles Darwin. So unless Charles Darwin lived for hundreds of years, you might reconsider your false statement.

Oops.