Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Some of the latest findings about our ancestral tree !

page: 1
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   
For those who are interested in this sort of stuff this is a rather long article about some of the latest findings with regards to the human Genome.. Even though interbreeding has been proven a scientific fact/// You have to ask yourself was it due to rape, pillage, and plunder or were the scouts back in those days just a bunch of Horney toads of the randy sort ? I think it is interesting that the different named ancestors could interbreed and produce off spring... If that is the case (which appears so) then there should be a common ancestor for all the divisions on the tree of mankind.... the difference in body types was more of an environmental adaptation than genetic . Since we are still missing a unknown species that dates back around 1 million years no telling what else we are missing.?. Anyway enjoy



In one of the most dramatic studies that have been seen in many years, scientists were able to extract DNA from a 50,000-year-old fossil that came from a Neanderthal woman found in a Siberian cave and piece together the Neanderthal genome to the same level of detail that has been achieved in modern day humans. The results showed that ancient human species, including Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo sapiens mated with each other, resulting in an incredibly complex family tree. In fact, it was found that about 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the DNA of people with European ancestry can be traced to Neanderthals; proportions of Neanderthal DNA are higher among Asians and Native Americans, who also have small percentages of Denisovan DNA; six percent of the genome of Australian Aborigines and indigenous Papua New Guineans belong to the Denisovan species; and only 96 genes responsible for making proteins in cells are different between modern humans and Neanderthals.

This supports a unique finding made in a rock shelter in Lisbon, Portugal some years ago, in which archaeologists uncovered the bones of a four-year-old child, comprising the first complete Palaeolithic skeleton ever dug in Iberia. The significance of the discovery was that an analysis of the bones revealed that the child, who became known as ‘the Lapedo Child’, had the chin and lower arms of a human, but the jaw and build of a Neanderthal, suggesting that he was a hybrid, the result of interbreeding between the two species.

However, the study on the fossil found in the Siberian cave produced another totally unexpected finding – the Denisovans share up to 8 percent of their genome with a “super archaic” and totally unknown species that dates back around 1 million years. It appears that the Denisovans bred with a mystery species from Asia – one that is neither human nor Neanderthal. Traces of the unknown new genome were detected in two teeth and a finger bone of a Denisovan. In fact, there have been several studies this year which have all pointed to the fact that there is unknown species in our family tree that is yet to be identified.
- See more at: www.ancient-origins.net...#!bmWs1aI


www.ancient-origins.net...




posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I have to wonder how creationists feel about humans breeding with other hominids? Strange that they would successfully interbreed, unless they are all the same species.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
'The First Toaster.'



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky


You have to ask yourself was it due to rape, pillage, and plunder or were the scouts back in those days just a bunch of Horney toads of the randy sort ?

Not surprised. Bored Shepards gave us some VD STD as a hand me down, didn't they?



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: 727Sky

I have to wonder how creationists feel about humans breeding with other hominids? Strange that they would successfully interbreed, unless they are all the same species.

All the species mentioned are human.

If it starts with "Homo," it's a human.

Harte



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky



However, the study on the fossil found in the Siberian cave produced another totally unexpected finding – the Denisovans share up to 8 percent of their genome with a “super archaic” and totally unknown species that dates back around 1 million years. It appears that the Denisovans bred with a mystery species from Asia – one that is neither human nor Neanderthal. Traces of the unknown new genome were detected in two teeth and a finger bone of a Denisovan. In fact, there have been several studies this year which have all pointed to the fact that there is unknown species in our family tree that is yet to be identified.



This is exactly why I've written quite a few threads and posts in related threads & topics that there may have been another group of 'Homo-Mixture" predating the accepted "Native American" population in prehistory by ten/twenty thousand or more years in the Americas.

Who knows...

An older mixture that were just as mentally capable as we are but physically much more robust and stronger. That combo would solve many mysteries of how such Cyclopean masonry/massive stones were moved at such an early period and then later when the known groups of later homo sapiens came into the area were they themselves convinced that 'Giants' moved and built them.

What happened to them? I'd guess just like in all of Europe, Asia and elsewhere, they were either bred out and their DNA absorbed or just like what happened much later when the Europeans came, they unknowingly spread disease which those older lines could not handle and subsequently simply died out.

Leaving ancient mysteries we still ponder to this day.



edit on 26-7-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Thanks for the link, even at only 7 months old it is rather dated as that field is moving very rapidly. It will be interested to see who the missing HSS cousin is, I'd say a HE off shoot that came to Asia long ago and developed different traits.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69
Your quote makes the same mistake, claiming they bred with another species that "wasn't human."

Such sloppy language only encourages the ignorant fringers.

Harte



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: SLAYER69
Your quote makes the same mistake, claiming they bred with another species that "wasn't human."


That's why I wrote...

" there may have been another group of 'Homo-Mixture' predating the accepted "Native American" population in prehistory by ten/twenty thousand or more years in the Americas"

Obviously I never mentioned nor alluded to anything that "wasn't human." Homo mixture would be anything imho like H sapiens H Neanderthal/Denisovian and now this other supposed Homo-whatevercus
edit on 26-7-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: SLAYER69
Your quote makes the same mistake, claiming they bred with another species that "wasn't human."


That's why I wrote...

" there may have been another group of 'Homo-Mixture' predating the accepted "Native American" population in prehistory by ten/twenty thousand or more years in the Americas"

Obviously I never mentioned nor alluded to anything that "wasn't human." Homo mixture would be anything imho like H sapiens H Neanderthal/Denisovian and now this other supposed Homo-whatevercus

I know. I read your post. Just pointing out how ubiquitous the mistake is.

People that choose to believe in ancient aliens could certainly run with that quote.

Harte



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

I ask...

Is it possible that those 'Natives' that succumbed to European diseases so easily may have had a higher percentage of those now yet to be discovered genetic lines of this unknown Homo? And that all natives that didn't perish simply had a higher percentage of H-Sapiens S coding?

This is why all those who are tested presently North, South, Central show known genetic ties?



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: Harte

I ask...

Is it possible that those 'Natives' that succumbed to European diseases so easily may have had a higher percentage of those now yet to be discovered genetic lines of this unknown Homo? And that all natives that didn't perish simply had a higher percentage of H-Sapiens S coding?

This is why all those who are tested presently North, South, Central show known genetic ties?


Which natives?

If you mean Native Americans, I suppose it's possible.
But it's certainly isn't necessary. Exposure to new diseases can be devastating to a population. AFAIK, smallpox first arose long after the migrations into North America - around 10,000 BC in Africa. Means they had never been exposed to it when they encountered it from Europeans. After 12,000 years, resistance was present in the newcomers, but not the natives.

Harte



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
What I also find interesting is that black africans do not have the Neanderthals DNA. Their blood is the purest of all homo sapiens.
edit on 26 7 2014 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: 727Sky

I have to wonder how creationists feel about humans breeding with other hominids? Strange that they would successfully interbreed, unless they are all the same species.

All the species mentioned are human.

If it starts with "Homo," it's a human.

Harte


If they can breed they share a common ancestry. Are Neanderthal's considered human? Not all species of frogs can interbreed.

This is in direct conflict with creationism.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: 727Sky

I have to wonder how creationists feel about humans breeding with other hominids? Strange that they would successfully interbreed, unless they are all the same species.

All the species mentioned are human.

If it starts with "Homo," it's a human.

Harte


If they can breed they share a common ancestry. Are Neanderthal's considered human? Not all species of frogs can interbreed.

This is in direct conflict with creationism.


Neanderthals are officially called Homo neanderthalensis but a 'large minority' call them Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, one classification makes them part of the genus Homo while the other makes them a sub species. Based on the genetics I'd say they are HSN



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

I honestly have no idea, but you guys are great with the information provided.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: 727Sky

I have to wonder how creationists feel about humans breeding with other hominids? Strange that they would successfully interbreed, unless they are all the same species.

All the species mentioned are human.

If it starts with "Homo," it's a human.

Harte


If they can breed they share a common ancestry. Are Neanderthal's considered human? Not all species of frogs can interbreed.

This is in direct conflict with creationism.

Homo Neanderthalensis link
Starts with "Homo," doesn't it?
You doubted me?

ME??

Harte



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: 727Sky

I have to wonder how creationists feel about humans breeding with other hominids? Strange that they would successfully interbreed, unless they are all the same species.

All the species mentioned are human.

If it starts with "Homo," it's a human.


Harte


If they can breed they share a common ancestry. Are Neanderthal's considered human? Not all species of frogs can interbreed.

This is in direct conflict with creationism.

Homo Neanderthalensis link
Starts with "Homo," doesn't it?
You doubted me?

ME??

Harte


That they were able to successfully mate with HSS kinda makes the point.

edit on 27/7/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: glend
Apparently not. Africans also have archaic admixture as there were many different types of human in Africa at times. They have detected admixture in Africans as well from another unknown hominid. There may be no pure homo sapiens anywhere in the world. Food for thought.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune
It seems that most of the time Neanderthals could not mate successfully with humans. Most of their offspring may have been sterile as they were different species. That is why the neanderthals died out, because they did not know that humans and neanderthals were not the same species. That's one theory anyway.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join