It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Starbucks
Besides, I thought there were no Neanderthal? Which personality is speaking for you today?




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I seems quite clear that this guy isn't interested in backing a single thing up. This is no surprise as 90% of it is scientifically invalid or irrelevant. Subsaharan Africans do NOT have Neanderthal genes. They are pretty much the only ones that do not have them. Humans did not originate from 1 original man and woman. Too much wrong to even waste time addressing. Starbucks, the pressure is on you to back up your claims.
edit on 18-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
so you or your refs cant answer my simple questions?

do I need refs to ask questions too?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Starbucks

Normally, no you wouldn't need a citation to ask a question. but in this instance, since it's been asked more than once and previously answered with citations and your reply was childish sarcasm and condescension while being completely devoid of a single fact let alone supporting links or citations then yes, I would say you do need citations to keep asking a question that has been previously answered. I've even gone so far as to supply the appropriate peer reviewed journal in one instance to support a newspaper or online article and you continuously refute everything and in only one instance attempted to cite a source that turned out to be a dozen years old and filled with completely outdated information. so why on earth would anyone continue to feed the troll let alone try to cross his bridge anymore?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
ok then answer the questions with out even citation or refs(i relieve you of that)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Starbucks

It's been answered more than once. Try this it might help-

www.tryhookedonphonics.tv...



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Starbucks
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.


I repeat my question in th quote from my last post


the sharing of dna between neanderthal and homosapiens, means neanderthals are homosapiens but of Europpean dna, which match 88% with all human dna hence it is found in all humans even the african who never left africa, and because it is found in all humans all 7 billion of them, if the neanderthals were seperate species they could not bring their dna to all and every homosapiens who only sprang from one man in africa in recent times and some of them did not leave africa untill a very recent time 50k years at most.
edit on 19-8-2014 by Starbucks because: (no reason given)

Not to forget the fact that that shared dna is also found in all neanderthals samples! ha ha
edit on 19-8-2014 by Starbucks because: (no reason given)


and it even gets better, the Europpeans branched out even more recently 10k years ago, so to find more shared dna with europpeans means the neanderthals bones need to be of very recent time 5 thousand years ago

edit on 19-8-2014 by Starbucks because: (no reason given)


en.wikipedia.org... europpean haplogroup R1
edit on 19-8-2014 by Starbucks because: (no reason given)


This is how evolutionists finally shot themselves in the foot.
they did themselves in and they proved to the world that their bones are fraud just like their thoery

edit on 19-8-2014 by Starbucks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Starbucks

I already answered your question. Sub saharan Africans tribe do not have Neanderthal DNA. Your claim that they do is wrong.
edit on 20-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Science isn't belief, it's theories based on evidence, when the evidence shows that previous theories are wrong, theories have to change.

You don't have to believe anything science says, since you can find your own evidence, propose your own theory, and the merits of your evidence will speak for itself. If it's a solid theory it will be accepted, if not, it's discredited.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok

Science isn't belief, it's theories based on evidence, when the evidence shows that previous theories are wrong, theories have to change.

There is no direct evidence to support the existence of dark matter. It is a theoretical prediction. Yet most scientists believe dark matter exists, and teach it as though it were fact.

Why? There is no evidence. No physical observation whatsoever. Why then do they believe it?

Because they have faith in the scientific method. They believe their theories will be validated on the basis of their method alone.

Do you believe in dark matter? Do you believe in a "missing link"? This is all nonsense made up by scientists to validate their unfounded beliefs.

If a religion changes what they believe, it destroys the credibility of the whole religion (because "God doesn't change"). When science teaches something as fact, then has to change everything because new facts don't fit their theories based on the old facts... it has the same effect--I can't believe they word they say.

Why should I believe in any revisionist's version of truth?
edit on 8/20/14 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

It's called "dark matter" because we can't see it and aren't exactly sure what it is. There is indeed evidence of dark matter.


Evidence for dark matter in spiral galaxies

In spiral galaxies like the Milky Way, we derive the gravitational mass from observing the motions of stars and gas clouds in the disk as they orbit the center. The rotation curve of a galaxy shows how the velocity of stars around the center varies as the distance from the center increases. Most spiral galaxies show flat rotation curves out as far as we can trace them, even where no more stars are visible. Therefore we conclude that the gravitational mass is more than 10 times more massive than the luminous mass.
Evidence for dark matter in clusters of galaxies

In clusters of galaxies, we derive the gravitational mass by measuring the orbital motions of the member galaxies. Since the galaxies in a cluster are roughly at the same distance from us, we can interpret any spread in their redshifts as orbital motion around the center of the cluster; it might amount to more than 1000 km/sec! By measuring the redshifts of lots of galaxies in the cluster, we can calculate the gravitational mass required to keep the galaxies in orbit (rather than escaping). This gravitational mass then can be compared to the luminous mass contributed by the galaxies plus that contributed by the Xray gas.


www.astro.cornell.edu...


Here is a more detailed explanation.

www.quantumdiaries.org...

Scientists don't just make this stuff up.

Plus they have found over 20 "missing links" between modern human and ancient ape. And scientists do not even call them missing links, that term is a misnomer.

Dark matter might not be well understood yet, but it definitely exists.

Incredibly more is understood about evolution than dark matter, however. There's no question at all as to whether it happened or not. None.
edit on 20-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Exactly. With dark matter, we might not be able to see IT but we can see how it interacts with other celestial objects.

The whole missing link misnomer is kind of annoying at this point. I can discern pretty much every member if the genus Homo as well as the intermediary stages as well as when and where they emerged and from which predecessor. It's not even a valid thing to bring up at this stage of the game. It's an anachronistic holdover from the 60's and 70's at best.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Starbucks

I already answered your question. Sub saharan Africans tribe do not have Neanderthal DNA. Your claim that they do is wrong.


where is your ref that subsaharan africans (actual africans) have no neanderthal dna.
the studies i read say 1% od all africans (subsaharan) have neanderthal dna!



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Starbucks

Provide the link to your source then! It's as simple as that. C'mon, you should know how this works. If you have a claim of evidence, prove it.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: Starbucks

Provide the link to your source then! It's as simple as that. C'mon, you should know how this works. If you have a claim of evidence, prove it.


I provided my reference that a person gets 50% of his/her autosomal dna from each parent.

where is your counter claim ref that subsaharan africans have no neanderthal dna.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Starbucks

You posted your claim in 7 or 8 different threads.

THIS POST is my response to you in the other thread. It backs up what I'm saying. Some sub sarahan tribes and individuals may have some Neanderthal DNA, but a good amount of them have ZERO, so your claim is wrong.
edit on 21-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Starbucks

Stop yourself right there, your bridge is calling you home Mr. Troll. Which link are you referring to? The one a few posts above linking to the Wikipedia article on the Timeline of Human Evolution? I certainly hope not because it disproves a whole bunch of the fresh feces you've been tossing at everyone like spider monkey at the local zoo. I provided a lengthy detailed response in one of the multitude of threads that you seem to be copy and pasting the same exact questions into and backed it up with multiple citations. When that was too difficult for you to grasp I simplified it with a picture that my children could grasp in about 3 minutes and you're reading comprehension was sorely lacking because you thought it was evidence that is wrong. I believe your exact words were that I shot myself in the foot, which simply wasnt the case win the exact opposite being true. You keep tossing out terminology that seems to be from ICR or some other Christian literal interpretation of the bible source without understanding the basics of the material you're bringing to the table. When every argument you up forth was dissected and proven to be incorrect you simply copied those questions and pasted them in a different thread. At best you're intellectually dishonest and lacking in integrity particularly when you refuse to show citations for many of your claims such as that all humans today descended from one man 50,000 BPE and then repeated that same answer with a different date each time finally settling on I believe 50-200,000 years. You've provided nothing of substance with the exception of perpetuating a massive Gish Gallop while running in circles with your lack of supporting data ad consistent moving of goal posts when you realized that none of your information could be apropriately cited by legitimate scientific evidence. By all means though, keep up the good work, you're going to need to trade your shovel in for a backhoe soon though because that hole you're digging is looking mighty deep right now.

You keep rambling about haplogroups and you clearly know very little about DNA at the most basic levels based on your rambling, disjointed descriptors. I, W and X are all of very ancient European origin. They are estimated to have arisen approximately 30,000 years ago, a few thousand years before the extinction of Neanderthal. Although present in all Europe and a big part of Asia, from the Middle East to Siberia, and even in North America in the case of X, these three haplogroups never exceed more than a few percents of the population in every region (most often under 1%). They are most common in cold, mountainous or desertic climates. The highest densities of X and W are observed in the Caucasus, in North-East Europe, Siberia and Central Asia, while haplogroup I reaches unusually high levels (4 or 5%) in countries like Iceland, Scotland, Norway or Latvia. While it is not 100% conclusive it is being further studied and the most likely answer is in fact that these 3 haplogroups are indeed holdouts from HNS as a result from interbreeding with them. Te samples that this data arose from were 25,000 year old remains in Iberia which is one of the last places Neanderthal managed to hang onto as an independent subspecies of HSS as the rest of Europe, minus a few exceptions like Croatia and Malta, was absorbing them into the ever increasing HSS population.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

There is no belief that dark matter exists, there is only evidence and mathematics that propose it's existence. What that matter is, what it is made of no one is sure, but that is not a belief.

Science is not a belief system, or a faith system, its an experimentation and observation system.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

this article proves that neanderthal dna found in all africans but make an unaccepted claim "Apparent variation in Neanderthal admixture among African populations is consistent with gene flow from Non-African populations.
---------
io9.com...

neanderthals contributed their specific dna more to melanisians aboriginies and han chinese and native americans than europpeasn!

"The Denisovans had contributed DNA only to people in Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Australia, and other places in Melanesia
However, looking at the Denisovan genome allowed researchers to discern a greater amount of Neanderthal DNA in east Asians (Han and Melanesians) and Native Americans than there is in Europeans--------

dinosivan
Since then, genetic evidence pointing to their hybridization with modern human populations has been detected, but only in indigenous populations in Australia, New Guinea and surrounding areas.
In contrast, Denisovan DNA appears to be absent or at very low levels in current populations on mainland Asia, even though this is where the fossil was found.
www.sci-news.com...
the only one finger tip found evidence of dinosivan in asia prove it is immigrant bone from melanisians into asia
-------
dinosivan share a lot with neanderthal and have lots of special dna yet never interbred with mainland asia!!!

en.wikipedia.org...

how dinosivan with all their new mutations (according to evolutionists sign of living long time in asia never left marker in humans in asia)
they actually were the melanesians who immigrated to north asia and they became the neanderthals who became the europpeans

the florisens were found to be a homosapiens branch, even though they were by evolutionists considered older than neanderthal so then neanderal in betwwen flor and humand were also humans

edit on 21-8-2014 by Starbucks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Starbucks
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

this article proves that neanderthal dna found in all africans but make an unaccepted claim "Apparent variation in Neanderthal admixture among African populations is consistent with gene flow from Non-African populations.


The very first line in the abstract you just sourced:


Recent studies have found evidence of introgression from Neanderthals into modern humans outside of sub-Saharan Africa.


It doesn't claim anywhere in the study that all Africans have Neanderthal DNA.




top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join