Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evidence Challenges the Out of Africa Theory of Evolution

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Starbucks
"it has been shown that HNS did not contribute mtDNA to HSS which indicates that it was HNS males mating with HSS females"

very good of you you said that.
then the maternal dna of the neanderthal is the maternal dna of current humans!


No, not at all. The mtDNA of HNS is from HNS, not HSS or HS. HNS were in Europe a 1/4 million years ago, what part of that are you not grasping? They were there long before us and nowhere near your fantasy island time frames


then it is 100 % that of current humans not 3%.
even if we agreed they found nuclear dna in neanderthal bones which is hardly believable, the nuclear dna is just a drop in basin compared to amount and availability of maternal dna, so they found 1% of the dna is nuclear dna and the rest is maternal dna, so which of the 3% of neanderthal dna is found in humans currently living?
I give you change to chose any lie you want.


I'm good with the truth, you are the one making things up, which is essentially a lie, and not supporting or citing any statements. You're just making up numbers, I've supplied citations all throughout my responses that support my statements, you simp,y choose not to believe the most current data and models. If you wish to remain in the bliss of ignorance that's on you.


all humans have neanderthal dna 1 to 4% of their dna including all africans minus the Khoisan (barely half a million out a billion africans).


No, as I showed above with quotes and citations, that is not the case. Show me evidence of African populations with HNS DNA and I will admit I am in error.


so how did the Neanderthal have sex with all homosapien women even those in africa which neanderthal did not visit?


They didn't have to. There is plenty of migrational data, again supplied previously by myself, that shows that some of the Africans who left for Europe had returned to Africa more in more than one migration over at least the past 3000 years. But it's a moot point as there is currently no evidence or data to show that HNS genes are in ANY Africans.


the african homosapiens who left africa are called the out of africa humans, they can not include the africans of african maternal and paternal ancestry who never left africa other wise they would have left their signature outside africa.


Yes, and they did as some of the returned. The ONLY Africans who never left were the Khoisan


the dna does not lie it is much precise than thumbprints. If DNA decided that you and another person is father and a son then it is so.


Precisely, yet you are ignoring the copious amounts of data, both in the genetic and fossil records that prove the exact opposite of what you are pedaling.


the maternal dna of african never left africa, the ones who left are known as the out of africa like L3, M, N < R etc, while L1, L2, L3 never left africa.
also male ancestry haplogroup A and B and most E never left africa.


Since you refuse to support any of these assertions we should all just take your word for it I guess


also humans of out of africa have dna similarity to africa humans 87% while they only differ by 12% (so all humans out of africa combined (6 billions ) only differ by 12% which translates that all of them were together in africa untill recent time (between 10k and 40k)
even though homosapiens branched from that one man (50 to 200k years ago) still they only left recently (by DNA evidence which beats any other bone reading and looking at).


No, all that is evidence for is the genetic bottleneck that reduced HSS to a population of approximately 10,000 after the Toba event 70,000 BPE


so the conclusion the 3% of neanderthal dna found in current humans is because the neanderthal were homosapiens, descendent of the same Most Recent common ancestor of current humans (aka the homosapiens). in a nutshel, the neanderthal were homosapiens and also came from the same man, and not from any other man, because of the existance of neanderthal dna in all current humans (which is actually current human dna found in neanderthals who were fully homosapiens and descendents of the same MRCA.
the fossil looking at and imagining things and bla bla dating according to bla bla is wrong because it differ with dna evidence so they all thrown in the garbage bin.




The only thing in the garbage bin is the incorrect information you continue to disseminate and refuse to support with evidence or citations.




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sheppie
It's all incredibly interesting and fascinating! But don't you agree that it also shows us how much we don't know? It's like everytime we discover one piece, two different ones appear.


I absolutely agree with you. To me, its both the fascinating and fun of Anthropology and why I pursued it. That's the great thing about science is that when it learns something new or finds that something is wrong, things are corrected and updated


Human history, wait, history of the world has already had so many theories and so many *sure things* yet we still argue, uncover mysteries and try to understand.


Even the most unbiased scientists at the end of the day are human beings and thus have an ego. When new data comes into play that contradicts established doctrine, it sometimes takes a little longer than I would like for people to come around but at the same time, that means to prove and disseminate an extraordinary claim, you must have extraordinary evidence and the highest quality data to support the new premise. It keeps us more honest that way, in my opinion and it means we aren't just changing hypothesis and theories like an infants diapers.

I agree on Khoisan people too
Something to take into consideration to even enhance the discussion:
www.southafrica.net...www.scienceclarified.com... ion.htmlweb.cocc.edu...

It's pretty late but I will definitely take a look at these links after I get a few hours of sleep, thank you for taking the time to it them up and I will definitely read throu and get back to you with my thoughts.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
since haplogroup A (khoisan) and haplogroup B are oldest human haplogroups that came out of the Most Recen Common Ancestor of all current humans, and since both haplogroups never left africa until last century (student visas etc), then all humans immigrated from africa. not only that, but they left africa quite recently 20 thousand years ago, because all out of africa humans (6 billions) have genetic diversity difference from africa people by only 12% of all human dna diversity, with the 88% all in africa, meaning all humans were mingling together in africa exchanging the diversity of 88%). untill some left africa. and all the left-afriica-people combined (males and females ) of currently at 6.5 billion peoplehave genetic diversity of only 12% out of the 100% complete genetic diversity of all humans combined (africans and non africans)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Starbucks

It's nothing but you're opinion unless you can support it with science and citations. I do t understand why that's such a hard concept to grasp yet you use condescending ding remarks and call ME slow? Whatever you say from the back of the short bus there pal. There is well sourced and peer reviewed science in addition to over 2 decades of research behind everything I'm saying while you cling to ad hominem attacks based on Bronze Age supernatural books. Cite sources of recent data to support your statements. You can't and haven't. It's like trying to tell a kindergartener there is no Santa because his mom told him it's true and that's the entire basis of your argument. The lack of diversity in HSS is a direct result of a well documented bottleneck event that occurs ought after the Toba event. Keep walking that dog in a circle and all you're going to accomplish is wearing down the grass. You're still going in a circle though.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   
the timeline is all wrong from the word GO. You can take it to the bank.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Starbucks

It's nothing but you're opinion unless you can support it with science and citations. I do t understand why that's such a hard concept to grasp yet you use condescending ding remarks and call ME slow? Whatever you say from the back of the short bus there pal. There is well sourced and peer reviewed science in addition to over 2 decades of research behind everything I'm saying while you cling to ad hominem attacks based on Bronze Age supernatural books. Cite sources of recent data to support your statements. You can't and haven't. It's like trying to tell a kindergartener there is no Santa because his mom told him it's true and that's the entire basis of your argument. The lack of diversity in HSS is a direct result of a well documented bottleneck event that occurs ought after the Toba event. Keep walking that dog in a circle and all you're going to accomplish is wearing down the grass. You're still going in a circle though.


I am talking about the genetic diversity among current humans who came from a man 50-200 k years ago..

So how the toba event killed all humans on earth minus few?
while other animals survived with out suffering bottle neck.
How come chimps have genetic diversity in one tribe (for example a tribe of 20k chimps in a jungle in Uganda) more than all the genetic diversity of all current humans 7 billion of them.

How did the chimps survive tobo and humans could not, even humans have abilities non existant in other animals, like temperature control in the brain makes him capable in living in all places on earth from the arctic to the tropic, plus his smartness, plus his abilities to make tools and the thumb etc..)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Starbucks

First, lets start off with you proving your claim that all humans descended from one man of varying periods of time depending on when or who is replying from your account. You keep repeating the same thing over and over ad infinitum and have yet to provide a single citation to support your claim. It's as if you keep repeating it enough times you think it will magically become an accepted fact. It's quite silly and pedantic when you get right down to it. If you can do that I'm more than happy to answer the rest of your question on who survived the bottleneck event.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

didn't you read the wikipedia page "Y Chromosomal Adam " ?

the first study which was the most correct was 60 k years ago, then another study (pure DNA study without adjustments from evolutionists) to 30k years . the first study found that all men descend from one man 60k years ago and all women descend from one woman who lived 100 k years ago, but then they thought the Mutation rate in Maternal DNA is slower than Y chromosome Mutation rate, but recently theyu found the reverse and so first man was 80k years ago while first woman was 60k years ago,
and then new studies expanded it to 140k but the majority are still under 100K years ago.

that all current living humans are descendent from one man who lived in recent history 20-200 k years ago). same date for first woman.

as for chimps the most recent common ancestor for them was dated to 1.7 million years ago (same chimps brand).
this is purely DNA studies with no regard for adjustment by evolutionists to fit fossil dating records.

They also found several arctic birds frosen for 40.000 years ago, when they checked their dna and compared it to current same birds, they found the mutation rate exactly the same mutation rate found in father-son observation or sperm studies, that there was no such adjustments of evolutionists related.
it is universal at .004 mutation rate meaning four mutations every 1000 generations



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Starbucks

the first study which was the most correct was 60 k years ago, then another study (pure DNA study without adjustments from evolutionists) to 30k years . the first study found that all men descend from one man 60k years ago and all women descend from one woman who lived 100 k years ago, but then they thought the Mutation rate in Maternal DNA is slower than Y chromosome Mutation rate, but recently theyu found the reverse and so first man was 80k years ago while first woman was 60k years ago,


I think Adam was some poor sucker that lived though the ice age. This event wiped-out the Neanderthals and maybe a few other off shoots, and even dwindled us down to less than 10,000. Out of those 10,000 one wonders how many ended up in a dead end too....

I would Google Genome-wide genotype and sequence-based to get a better view of humans and what we did in the past 140k years.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Now that I referred you to the wiki link you already known, may be you can tell us the story of what happened to the two thousand people with the scientifically proven Y chromosomal Adam, how long did they continue to have lineage of sons and daughters. I am so exited to know about those lost tribe.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join