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.

 

Were Neanderthals a sub-species of modern humans? New research says no

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I hope this thread won't be derailed with nonsense bashing...




posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

If you believe that scientists are lying to us about the "REAL" history of this world, why don't you set us straight by citing the testable evidence proving your version of the "REAL" history of this world? Note the words "testable evidence".



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Telos
I hope this thread won't be derailed with nonsense bashing...
I agree, and I apologise for getting off track. But have I? I know this is a conspiracy site...but not everything is a conspiracy! Telos, you have drawn our attention to an new piece of an ongoing debate. When I did a paper on our Neanderthal friends, I came to the conclusion that they were not human. Which is to say they weren't us. I found that to be a fairly profound revelation, as it required me to define, to my own satisfaction, who (or what) we actually are. Again, that was my conclusion, but alas, I am not a paleoanthropologist, but just a mere shovelmonkey.

But...big point here...I know a whole bunch of archaeologists and most of them are a lot smarter than I am. I do not see suppression of knowledge. 'Raiders' is not a documentary. The very post that you have made is, once again, proof that our understanding of our collective past shifts as new information is introduced. And the bar is, of necessity, held high. Sure, you may have some academics that need to be bludgeoned with new data to buy into it.

But ultimately, those who continue to cry conspiracy in the face of evidence to the contrary are a lot more tiresome than a glacially-paced academe.




posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

That's sort of what I was conveying. So, firmly agreed.

Also, thanks for the reading material.

Bless you.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Here's the problem with mixing with Neanderthals theory: what they found is that Neanderthals DNA is only found in the mtDNA(the mother lineage) of modern humans, in other words, it suggests that only Neanderthal men mixed with our women. There's no "earthly" theory that can explain this. Did the Cro-Magnons move in against the Neanderthals, and only our women mated with their men? If it's rape, then it's the other way around(we lost basically. After all, they were shorter but stronger, and in a fight with "physical weapons," i.e non-gun weapons such as spears and clubs, having a lower center of gravity actually gives you an advantage). What did our men and their women do in the meantime? In order for this mixing theory to work, we would have to assume the above, that our men and their women did not do anything with each other, assume that their women must have died out, and then the mixed-Neanderthals mated with our "pure" Cro-Magnon men. Basically, if there was mixing, then why isn't the DNA suggest 50-50? Furthermore, one would have to explain how most humans have Neanderthal DNA, in other words, suggest that Europe was the origin of modern humans(by that I mean the Cro-Magnon/Neanderthal hybrids that we are now), yet their civilization came last.

Now if we were to go with the Bible, then it's pretty simple. God simply took a bit of DNA from the Neanderthals and infused them with modern humans. Perhaps this is what the story of Adam's rib symbolizes, but it's also possible that he took a bit of DNA of the first mankind and engineered a new species in the Biblical Eve.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

How about dating the clams on Mt Everest directly?



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Tangerine

How about dating the clams on Mt Everest directly?



How might one do that? The geological history of Everest is complex but if you are actually interested in it.....


SEARLE, M., SIMPSON, R., LAW, R., PARRISH, R., & WATERS, D. (2003). The structural geometry, metamorphic and magmatic evolution of the Everest massif, High Himalaya of Nepal-South Tibet Journal of the Geological Society



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: np6888

Show where in the Bible God created Neanderthals before Adam, this is the old pre-adamite idea which hasn't been shown to be supportable either by evangelicals or scientists.

There is a study I've seen that shows / presents a theory that what we see now was the result of HSS and HSN breeding but that only a very few of the attempts were successful. While horses and mules can mate the off spring are usually sterile except in a few cases, this exceptionalism may explain the limited finding of Neanderthal DNA in HSS.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
From what I understand (and I really don't properly understand genetics) from speaking with a good friend of mine (who happens to be a very well respected geneticist), there's a common ancestor - which is why "Neanderthal" DNA markers show up in modern humans. However, the Neanderthals had a higher number of pairs of chromosomes (or it could be fewer, but higher seems more likely). This means that any progeny of a human/Neanderthal birth would have an uneven pairing of chromosomes. Birth would be possible, but that progeny would be sterile. Similar to horses and donkeys. They can make a mule, but a mule can't make a mule.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Badgered1
From what I understand (and I really don't properly understand genetics) from speaking with a good friend of mine (who happens to be a very well respected geneticist), there's a common ancestor - which is why "Neanderthal" DNA markers show up in modern humans. However, the Neanderthals had a higher number of pairs of chromosomes (or it could be fewer, but higher seems more likely). This means that any progeny of a human/Neanderthal birth would have an uneven pairing of chromosomes. Birth would be possible, but that progeny would be sterile. Similar to horses and donkeys. They can make a mule, but a mule can't make a mule.



It is my understanding that the Neanderthal DNA had differentiated from the earlier common ancestor then come back into modern HSS.

Now we don't have much HSN in us now but many years ago there seems to have been more, in particular Otzi showed a higher percentage



Chart comes from the 1000 Genome website but the link is being difficult at the moment.

Chart also at the link below




Paleogenetic evidence from Neandertals, the Neolithic and other eras has the potential to transform our knowledge of human population dynamics. Previous work has established the level of contribution of Neandertals to living human populations. Here, I consider data from the Tyrolean Iceman. The genome of this Neolithic-era individual shows a substantially higher degree of Ne- andertal ancestry than living Europeans. This comparison suggests that early Upper Paleolithic Europeans may have mixed with Neandertals to a greater degree than other modern human populations. I also use this genome to evaluate the pattern of selection in post-Neolithic Europeans. In large part, the evidence of selection from living peoples genetic data is confirmed by this specimen, but in some cases selection may be disproved by the Icemans genotypes. Neolithic-living human comparisons provide information about migration and diffusion of genes into Europe. I compare these data to the situation within Neandertals, and the transition of Neandertals to Upper Paleolithic populations three demographic transitions in Europe that generated strong genetic disequi- libria in successive populations.


Link for table and comment above but it is 2 years old which in this subject makes it ancient
edit on 25/11/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

In Genesis 1, when God said, let us make mankind in our image, on the 6th "day," which can and should be interpreted as aeon. Now you may argue that the use of the words evening and morning suggest that the context is day. However, it's possible that the words morning and evening were also mistranslated. Here's a good site:

www.accuracyingenesis.com...

Scroll down to Genesis 1:5 and look at the literal translation(and not the translated words by the author)

Basically, the phrase "and exist dusk and exist dawn yom one" is translated as "there was evening and there was morning - the first day." Now dusk and dawn can be translated as evening and morning, but what about the phrase "and exist," by translating it as "there was," it implies that God had just finished his work in one day and a day has passed. To me, the way this phrase is used throughout Genesis 1, it could also be used as basically as some kind of, well, I don't know the word for it, but basically a cliché that has no meaning or just emphasizes one point. Basically, the phrase can be translated as "there exists light and darkness yom one."

Notice that the symbols for day(3117) in Genesis 1:5/2:4 vs Daniel 8:26 are not the same either. Quite frankly, I don't even know how you can translate something, without knowing the syntax and grammar, i.e native speaker of that language. Knowing the literal translations of the words is not enough. If you'd tried to translate youtube comments, you'd realize this.




edit on 25-11-2014 by np6888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Also, notice that in Daniel 8:26 the word evening also comes before morning, so basically, it just seems like a tradition for them to put evening before morning, and should not be viewed as God had just finished his work, and then evening and then morning arrived. Now if you're familiar with Asian Culture, then you can pretty much loosely translate that phrase into just about anything, and light and darkness/darkness and light fits.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I'm taking the position that everybody since HE is part of a macro species, we can freely interbreed. This has been proven since all non africans have neanderthal dna, with native americans having the highest levels. The people of oceana and se asia have denisovan dna. Traces of an unknown "archaic"(ie homo erectus or homo heidlburgensis) show up in both african and non african humans. If you use the criteria that the authors use to denote a different species then many populations of humans are different species, as there distinctive skeletal morphologies that separate said populations. Limb proportions among many native american groups would put them as outliers to all other groups.
As to the absence of neanderthal Y dna,
Austin Whitall has something to say about that on his blog

Making sense of this muddle


Above, I asked why didn't Neanderthal Y chromosomes survive among their descent (albeit admixed with modern humans)? Probably there were too few of them and too many of us, and their Y chromosomes got watered down, in successive admixtures, diluted until their frequencies are so low that they have not yet been detected.


Another option is that "Haldane's rule'' kicked in; the rule declares that if hybrids of one sex only are sterile, the afflicted sex is much more likely to be the male (XY) than the female (XX). Of course, why would hominds so close to each other bear sterile offspring? It is not like horses and donkeys, this is humans and Neanderthal, and we have their genes in us, so we did interbreed and the offspring survived (but Haldane's rule may mean that the girls survived but the boys were sterile).


A paper (Sankararaman et al., 2014) [6] supports the "Haldane's rule" notion: "...interbreeding of Neanderthals and modern humans introduced alleles onto the modern human genetic background that were not tolerated, which probably resulted in part from their contributing to male hybrid sterility".


The Neanderthal-deficient regions in modern humans are found in genes that "are specifically expressed in the testes, and in the female sex X chromosome. "This suggests that some Neanderthal-modern human hybrids had reduced fertility and in some cases were sterile. An unexpected finding is that regions with reduced Neanderthal ancestry are enriched in genes, implying selection to remove genetic material derived from Neanderthals. Genes that are more highly expressed in testes than in any other tissue are especially reduced in Neanderthal ancestry, and there is an approximately fivefold reduction of Neanderthal ancestry on the X chromosome." [6]


But, this does not mean a total extinction of their sex chromosomes; not all of their offspring were sterile after all, we still carry their genes mixed with ours, why shouldn't their Y chromosomes survive too?


In my opinion, we actuall carry their Y chromosomes in us (in the men of course), but long before we admixed with them in Eurasia some 60 kya. The mutation rates that are used to date our Y lineages are wrong, allow me to explain why:


We look at populations (say Amerindians) and jot down their haplogroup markers, and we assume that they mutated when they reached America and then, we guess the date they entered America (say 15 kya). With this we calibrate our clock. We again look at the humans closest to Africa and jot down their haplogroups markers, and once again guess the date these people's ancestors left Africa (say 70 kya), and again calibrate our clock. We take another look at the oldest fossils of AMH in Africa (195 kya) and jot down the most divergent African haplogroups' markers, we recalibrate our clock again. But, as you can see, there are many assumptions in all of this (the dates and, above all, the assumption that these haplogroups are specifically human and mutated recently < 200 ky!).


But, What if they are not specific to us, but archaic? What if we carry slowly mutating Y chromosomes. The mutations found in certain haplogroups are valid, but they reflect ancient migrations. Maybe even the Out Of Africa (OOA) migration of H. erectus or, within the time range given by Mendez et al., the Y chromosomes of H. heidelberensis or Neanderthals?


This would explain why there are no Neanderthal specific branches to be found (the red ones in the image above). We all have the same tree our and their lineages coincide.


So what the date should we consider for the makers at the "non-African" CT groups (the OOA split)? Not the date modern humans left Africa. Instead it may be the date Neanderthals left Africa.


The split in Altai, with a Western route for our "R" hg and East for the "Q" hg may indicate divergence among the Neanderthals that lived there while AMH began to move out of Africa.


The archaic humans of China and even Lake Mungo people in Australia may be the branches of the South East Asian and Austronesian Y chromosome haplogroups, instead of modern humans that reached those regions much later.


The Q hg in America may not reflect a recent peoping of America at all, but an ancient one by Neanderthals.


The pan African E hg, may reflect the recent dispersal of AMH in the continent as well as in the Middle East, Southern Europe, and Asia after their OOA movement.


The dispersal of Q hg across the Arctic regions of America and Eurasia or the presence of the very old C hg in Asia and America may reflect the ancient migrations of primitive humans and not the recent (



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: np6888

I honestly do not see what that proves. There are plenty of other religious texts out there. WE are talking about genetics, not theology



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: np6888

So a summary is: No I (you) cannot. I knew that before. However, as the Bible is just the writing of some gentlemen without a clue about science its probably not a good idea to include it into a scientific discussion, lol.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: np6888
There are plenty of other religious texts out there.


Lots of them, (religions) that say a lot of stuff much of which is unsupported by scientific data - which is not unexpected as the people making up that stuff long again didn't have the slightest idea of how the scientific method worked and in many cases were just recording stories they themselves had heard or making up stories to explain what they saw around them.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

As I noted earlier this isn't really a 'big deal' people have been arguing about species classification for a long time. ...its like the line we draw between where we become HSS from the earlier HSH, it arbitrary and based on consensus- lets put the line THERE!



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: np6888

Why don't you quote "Lord of the Rings"? It's just as relevant.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
This is a fascinating subject, that we will actually Never know the real answer.

It seems the Homo species of Europe/Asia did develop independently of the African Homos from at least H Erectus...or whomever the equivalent species was.....so it seems.

There is still No reason, why modern man may not have developed in Europe/Asia and migrated back to Africa, to lift the gene pool there. Modern man Out of Africa, is still speculation.

Love the comment by a learned Bible scholar....

"We shall make man in Our image" or some such rubbish.....
So "God" is plural in the Bible....there is more than One God?
Sort of defeats the purpose of the rest of the myth then, does'nt it?



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

SO basically just like the bible, and again nothing to do with genetics?




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join