reply to post by OrphenFire
Originally posted by OrphenFire
Fact: humans today have some Neanderthal DNA.
Citation needed. Now, I know that there is speculation that this is the case, but I'm not aware of any paper that has definitively demonstrated
I'm sorry, but not a single one of these is a scientific paper. These are not adequate citations. I hate
the popular science media because it
so often over-inflates and distorts stories either due to a lack of understanding or sensationalism.
Neanderthals are extinct, therefore the interbreeding of humans and Neanderthals positively took place.
...what? How do you know it didn't happen through horizontal gene transfer? We may have gotten it through retroviral insertion through a virus that
infected both humans and Neanderthals.
Why would you just assume they didn't have sex?
Because I have no good reason to say that Neanderthals and Humans were able to produce fertile offspring. I'm not going to doubt that it might have
been possible for them to produce offspring (though I've not seen any source that has determined the number of chromosomes in the Neanderthal
genome...so I can't be certain), but I'm not going to assume that hypothetical gene sharing is necessarily from interbreeding.
Hell, they could merely be residual genes from a common ancestor.
Why would you rather assume some random "retroviral insertion" took place? The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. And in this case,
humans like to screw. Just look at us.
...um...the simplest explanation that actually accounts for everything can tend to be the best one. But interbreeding doesn't account for everything
and it doesn't necessarily make sense.
Fact: Neanderthals hailed from Europe, and humans hailed from Africa.
Fact: Neanderthals are a species of human.
No. Sorry, Neanderthals are not a species of human. They are a different species who evolved from Homo heidelbergensis. Everybody knows this!
Why should I even have to say this again?
Homo....that genus encompasses all humans
. We are homo sapiens sapiens, modern
humans. The only extant species of human. Habilis? Human.
Erectus? Human. Those "Hobbits" whose species name I can't remember? Human.
(there is no "came first", they are entirely different species who evolved independently of one another from the split population of Homo
heidelbergensis (cave men).
Alright, show me a citation on this too.
Read the very first sentence from the italicized writing in this article.
14 year old article? I'm sorry, but we hadn't even sequenced the human genome back then...please, provide a more contemporary source. I will give
you that this was a step up as it actually seems to be an academic source...except that it doesn't actually seem to publish academic papers.
Africa is closer to equator and hotter. Europe is further up and cold. The exposure of a hot, unshielded sun led Homo sapiens to evolve dark
skin and the cooler climate led Homo neanderthalensis to evolve lighter skin.
...so you're speculating? I'd like to point out that you're speculating that interbreeding led to something that you admit can evolve without
interbreeding...isn't it a bit odd that you're self-defeating here?
Yes I'm speculating. That's the entire purpose of my opening post.
What follows is a demonstration that you are quite ignorant of science. You also fail to address the critical flaw where I just pointed out that
you're postulating interbreeding when you freely admit that another mechanism could have easily lead to the change without interbreeding.
Furthermore, you're not even bothering to look into whether or not it is right based on actually available data. Were skin tone result of Neanderthal
interbreeding we might have picked it up when we sequenced our genome
I am postulating a theory, not a law.
Circuits are a theory, there is nothing indeterminate about whether or not they are fact. You are unaware of the use of academic terms, please read up
Laws are merely descriptions of how the universe functions under specific circumstances...well, it's a bit more complicated.
My point here is that the thousands of years each species (Neanderthals and humans) spent in different climates led to the different pigmentations of
Yes...and what I pointed out was that you could simply use that same explanation to explain why h.s.sapiens that settled different areas have
different skin tones.
Then when the African humans and the European Neanderthals met up and started gettin' busy, the light skinned genes were inserted into the dark
...I'm not going to bother going into the mechanics of genetics...but I don't know too much about genetics and even I know this is quite flawed.
Aside from the fact that you're automatically assuming fertile offspring, you're postulating that a set of recessive genes could have taken over
based on that assumed interbreeding.
If these lighter skinned humans stayed in Europe, they probably (oh no, not speculation!) got even lighter due to staying in that region.
...so why couldn't they have just
I don't think it's a coincidence that white people of European descent match up with Neanderthal DNA and black people don't. It's that simple.
Again, citation needed. I'd like to see a citation from the academic literature
that shows that this is true.