Neandertal trait in early human skull suggests that modern humans...

Some theorists say that man took the 'great leap forward' because he learnt to eat meat, 200,000 years ago. The first recognizable 'man' arrived 1,000,000 years ago, so it seems humans might not have been around for millions upon millions of years.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Some theorists say that man took the 'great leap forward' because he learnt to eat meat, 200,000 years ago. The first recognizable 'man' arrived 1,000,000 years ago, so it seems humans might not have been around for millions upon millions of years.

I'm not sure where you heard that humans have been around for millions of years but it's never been taught as science, evolution, anthropology, evolutionary biology, paleontology et al. The Genus Homo which includes modern humans, Neanderthal, Denisovan, Homo Erectus, H. Rudolphensis, H. Antecessor, H. Ergaster, H. Habilis, H. Heidelbergensis, H. Floresiensis and a few more that I can't remember off the top of my head...Red Deer Cave people also.

Technically, all of them that fall under the Genus Homo are our ancestors and could be considered sub classifications of Humanity so if you look at it from that perspective then Humans have been around for 2.3-2.5 million years and the big leap in humanity was first bipedalism which predates large brains by several million years.

All of the Australopithecines were bipedal and Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus afarensis are likely direct lineages to Homo Habilis. Prior to the Australopithecines Ardipithecus Ramidus was likely bipedal part of the time while spending the rest of their time utilizing locomotion in a similar fashion as Chimpanzees and Bonobo so Bipedalism goes back at least 4.5 million years with some possible earlier candidates for bipedalism such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis who lived approximately 7 million years ago.

Eating meat is evidenced in the dentition of several of the australopithecines so it goes back at least 3-4 million years ago, not 200,000.

When you get right down to it, where you draw your lines in the sand is almost as much a matter of politics as it is science and there is still a great deal of debate on where and how to draw certain lines. For example, Neanderthal is now considered a subspecies of modern humanity and it is proven that we have bred with them and share genes and Heidelbergensis is considered by some to be the same species as Neanderthal, by others a separate older lineage and by yet others a direct predecessor and transitional state between Neanderthal and H. Erectus.

In many ways, Erectus and Ergaster were "more well built" than modern humans with the average height for Erectus around 5' 11" and Ergaster having and average height of 6'3". They were both bigger and stronger than we are, had an average cranial capacity within or near the average cranial capacity of modern humans or Homo Sapiens Sapiens and managed to become the first world travelers where they evolved separately for around 2 million years leading to what would become H. Sapiens from the African Erectus population, Neanderthal from the European and possibly some admixture between the European and Asian leading to Denisovan who also had some admixture with Neanderthal in areas where their territories overlapped.

A lot of people seem to have the idea that human evolution is a pretty straight forwards and straight line of descendants but it is a much more confusing and non linear puzzle with over lapping areas, grey areas and more mysteries yet to be found. Recent DNA evidence suggests that there is yet another member of our family tree somewhere in Africa yet to be discovered that shares common traits and genes with us, Neanderthal and Denisovan so the family tree of humanity is much more like a huge, unpruned bush. To me, it makes it all the more interesting that we don't know everything and have likely just seen the tip of the iceberg.

a reply to: peter vlar

you see?
they compared dna of neanderthal with dna of living humans. they did not compre them with dna of anciethumas?
and the two eanderthal samples wre from the same geographic area roamed by the ancient russians.

there couldt be maternal dna or any dna left after 20 thousand yeas. i is all germs dna plus 3% leftover from human dna.

there was no homo erectus or homo ficticious or homo forgeritous.

all current humans descend from one human and one human only who lived 60k years ago or less proved by DNA.

If humans intermarried with other species, they should have stopped intermarrying few hundred years ago to have 3%.
from your own words Neanderthal died 20000 K years ago.

a reply to: Starbucks


And where is your supporting citation for your claims? You're wrong I every account and refuse I back up your supposition with any type of fact based data. That's just ridiculous. As for what version of humanity they were comparing, it's entirely irrelevant as they have compared archaic Homo Sapiens DNA with HSS thus the comparison to the HNS MtDNA entirely valid. You want them to make a comparison of contemporaneous samples from HNS and HS yet there are no contemporary European samples for the older HNS samples as HSS had yet to make it into Europe. Back up your insane and false claims that all if humanity descended from one single male 50-60,000 BPE or admit you're making it all up because the legitimate data conflicts with your rigorous leanings. It's ok if that's the case just have the stones to admit such and admit that you can't provide any citations to support it. I have you liter size a of sources and citations.

my citations are the citations brought by the evolutionists here in this thread.

the article state that neanderthal dna was compared with CURRENT Human and Chimp DNA , while the comparition should be with ancient human and chimp dna to account for all the variables of time (dna change after death, dna of germs, dna of germs of specific region and times).
the study cries out loud it is not accepted and not scientific.

a reply to: Starbucks

Lol you haven't backed up even a SINGLE claim you've made!

a reply to: Starbucks

Just admit that you don't understand let alone know what you're actually talking about. It's ok to be wrong. I'm wrong all the Time. I already explained to you how and why the study is entirely valid. We have comparisons between HSS and archaic Homo sapiens. You are asking for a comparison that doesn't exist in many cases because there weren't any Homo sapiens in Europe when some of the HNS remains being sampled were still alive. Provide one citation or admit you can prove your point. It's really quite simple. You're whining about what is or is not scientific and then make claims you refuse to cite and support. THAT is not scientific at all.

the fact that dna change radically after death and keep changing?
or the fact that germs eat the dna of bones and make them dna of germs through ages and hundreds of thousands of generations of germs through 20k years to 1m kya.
the fact that all research for evolution is heftly paid for (will lie food food scientists)

a reply to: Starbucks

the fact that dna change radically after death and keep changing?

Got a source for that assertion?

or the fact that germs eat the dna of bones and make them dna of germs through ages and hundreds of thousands of generations of germs through 20k years to 1m kya.

Got a source for that assertion?

the fact that all research for evolution is heftly paid for (will lie food food scientists)

Is this even a complete sentence?

originally posted by: Starbucks
the fact that dna change radically after death and keep changing?

Absolutely false. Unless you're confusing change with degradation. Yes, DNA will degrade once the host dies but it doesn't change as you claim. The inference you are making with that context implies that the genetic material is subjected to further mutation after death. False and impossible.

or the fact that germs eat the dna of bones and make them dna of germs through ages and hundreds of thousands of generations of germs through 20k years to 1m kya.

Again, you're extremely confused about your point of reference. While its true that mitochondria of eukaryotes evolved from aerobic bacteria, that isn't the same as what you are attempting, in vain, to imply is happening to tissue after death, it especially does not replace the DNA with germs let alone 97% of it. But please feel free to provide a citation supporting your assertions, though im not going to hold my breath at this point because you have refused todo so thus far. And by refuse, I really mean you are completely unable to do so because those citations do not actually exist outside of your imagination.

the fact that all research for evolution is heftly paid for (will lie food food scientists).

Interesting and insane. I have to assume that English is not your first language by the way you write, would I be correct in that assumption? Because that sentence makes absolutely no sense in the English language.

A quick edit to address your prior assertions that Homo Sapiens are only 50-60,000 years old

Y-haplogroup A, the most diverse or oldest-diverging Y haplogroup transmitted purely by patrilineal descent, is today present in various Khoisan groups at frequencies of 12-44%, and the other Y-haplogroups present have been formed by recent admixture of Bantu male lineages E3a (18-54%), and in some groups, noticeable Pygmy traces are visible (B2b). The Khoisan also show the largest genetic diversity in matrilineally transmitted mtDNA of all human populations. Their original mtDNA haplogroups L1d and L1k are one of the oldest-diverging female lineages as well.

Additionally the oldest known evidence of the Y chromosome is dated back approx 338,000 years. I really do encourage you to do some research, it would benefit you greatly. www.sci-news.com...

every food made of protein (dna for example) is for the germs to eat. no dna escapes being eaten by germs especially after 40 thousands of years. only 3% of original dna might survive.

and 30% of dna degrade (mutate) in the first hour after death and keep changing and then keep fragmenting and keep being eaten by germs. the small fragments at the end after thousands of year are so small they could be found in germs or humans or any dna of any animal on earth, no more specific to any being.

all current humans are homosapiens and branched from one man who lived 70 thousand years ago.

the dna diversity of out of africa humans to africa humans is so low that it means humans came of africa recently 20 thousand years at most.
the africans A and B never left africa.

The evolutionists claim 3% of current Whites have Neanderthal DNA.,.. ( good so far for you to understand?)

and that Chinese have 2% of Neanderthal DNA ( good do far?)
and african have 1% of Neanderthal DNA (good so far for you?)

Now you see all current humans have 1% to 3% of Neanderthal DNA.

Africans never left africa (no traces of african dna outside of africa )

Neanderthal found in Northern Europe and Northern Asia (siberia).

so how did Neanderthal DNA in Africans, but in all (ALL!!!!) humans????

Even the out of africa humans (homosapiens) left africa at earliest 20 thousand years ago, while Neanderthal died 40 thousand years ago.

So how did they get married???

Also Maternal DNA does not get mixed, it pass solely from mother to child without intermixing.

The DNA found in Neanderthal bones are Maternal DNA ( are you still with me so far??)

so how come only 3% of maternal dna of neanderthal found in current humans not 100% 0r 0%., cant be mix of the two

originally posted by: Starbucks


all current humans are homosapiens and branched from one man who lived 70 thousand years ago.

the dna diversity of out of africa humans to africa humans is so low that it means humans came of africa recently 20 thousand years at most.
the africans A and B never left africa.

The evolutionists claim 3% of current Whites have Neanderthal DNA.,.. ( good so far for you to understand?)

and that Chinese have 2% of Neanderthal DNA ( good do far?)
and african have 1% of Neanderthal DNA (good so far for you?)

Now you see all current humans have 1% to 3% of Neanderthal DNA.

Africans never left africa (no traces of african dna outside of africa )

Neanderthal found in Northern Europe and Northern Asia (siberia).

so how did Neanderthal DNA in Africans, but in all (ALL!!!!) humans????

Even the out of africa humans (homosapiens) left africa at earliest 20 thousand years ago, while Neanderthal died 40 thousand years ago.

So how did they get married???

Also Maternal DNA does not get mixed, it pass solely from mother to child without intermixing.

The DNA found in Neanderthal bones are Maternal DNA ( are you still with me so far??)

so how come only 3% of maternal dna of neanderthal found in current humans not 100% 0r 0%., cant be mix of the two

what is the conclusion?

there was no Neanderthals.

There was no homo erectus.
there was no humans prior to 70 thousand years ago.
Humans did not branch from apes.
Darwin was smitten by god to look like an ape and so he subconsiously made up the evolution theory to bring all humans down with him into the pit, even though it was only him that god turned him into ape-look-alike man for his evil deeds.

originally posted by: Starbucks

originally posted by: Starbucks


what is the conclusion?

there was no Neanderthals..

in another thread you use HNS mtDNA quite liberally to support some of your thesis now all of a sudden they don't exist? How do you reconcile that reality? Are different people posting from the same account or have you had a couple of drinks or something? it just doesn't make any sense to me how you keep changing your story. it's like one of those "Which Way" books that came out in the early 80'sfor kids

There was no homo erectus..

All modern biologists, anthropologists, paleontologists etc... will whole heartedly disagree with you on that. It's your claim, support it. I've asked repeatedly but you simply can't can you?

there was no humans prior to 70 thousand years ago..

There were and Homo Sapiens emerged approximately 200,000 BPE and began making their way north by 110,000 BPE, were in Israel by 110,000-100,000 BPE where they first encountered HNS

Humans did not branch from apes..

well you finally got one correct, we ARE apes and share a common ancestor with the other great apes.

Darwin was smitten by god to look like an ape and so he subconsiously made up the evolution theory to bring all humans down with him into the pit, even though it was only him that god turned him into ape-look-alike man for his evil deeds.

Darwin based his hypothesis on speciation in Finches, it had nothing to do with apes originally.

they are idiots like some people, they don't have the ful picture before they attempted to make lies and so they were caught red handed. nobody will dare to show them the full picture and how stupid they are, for fear of losing their jobs.

and here I did it, and showed you how stupid they are making lies before they look into the full range of interrelated knowledge.

a reply to: Starbucks

Dear lord... You are the master of the Gish Gallop aren't you? There's no point in continuing this, especially when its closing in on 4 AM because once again, you are making some far fetched claims without an iota of data or evidence to support it. Best of luck to you and you're extremely vivid imagination.

there was no homosapiens or neanderthals and spagetti man before the Most Recent Common Ancestor of current humans.

it is all in your mind.
count neanderthals jumping over the fence to help you sleep, sweet dreams.

a reply to: Starbucks

Support your complete Male bovine excrement and cite your refutation of the well documented fossil record and genetic data. Keep em coming, I need a good laugh there princess because it's pretty funny watching you try climbing this mountain with no tread on your tires.

you did not answer any of my questions.
how did Neanderthal have dna in africans who did not leave africa. The back to africa migration is Maternal haplogroup M in Ethiopia, and Paternal Arabs J1.

subsaharan africa have no back migration. how did they get neanderthal dna in the last 200 000 years.

a reply to: peter vlar
Because they don't have the genes you claim and I have multiple citations supporting it whereas you have continued to make the same claims over and over with out supporting them. If that's the case, simply state that it's your opinion based on what you think you understand. At least it would be honest.