It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
originally posted by: Telos
I hope this thread won't be derailed with nonsense bashing...
originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Tangerine
How about dating the clams on Mt Everest directly?
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.
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.
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)  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." 
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 (
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: np6888
There are plenty of other religious texts out there.