Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Theories On Racial Diversity

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   



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 it.


Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
etc...




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? 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.




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?




(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.




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. I am postulating a theory, not a law. My point here is that the thousands of years each species (Neanderthals and humans) spent in different climates led to the different pigmentations of said species. Then when the African humans and the European Neanderthals met up and started gettin' busy, the light skinned genes were inserted into the dark skinned humans. If these lighter skinned humans stayed in Europe, they probably (oh no, not speculation!) got even lighter due to staying in that region. 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.




And I don't see how anyone can think I'm being racist. If you find racism in my remarks, you yourself are reading that into the discussion.


...well, I'm not saying you're racist...but you did make a few racially insensitive remarks...like certain groups of people looking weird.


Looking weird isn't necessarily derogatory. Asians are the only people with a monolid, and it's an odd comparison to the eyelids that everyone else has. However, I think Asian women are damn hot. I find their eyes beautiful.
edit on 5/2/2011 by OrphenFire because: fixed link




posted on May, 2 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
You can also read this thread for more information and a clearer picture of the evolution of humans and Neanderthals.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
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 it.


Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
etc...


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.


Try here.







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 on them.

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 said species.


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 skinned humans.


...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.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by john_bmth
 

Are you trying to say the common ancestor was white? If a black race (Africans?) and a white race (Neanderthals?) existed at the same time, which came first???



Omg, I'm confusing myself now. Maybe I'd better cut down on the wine.

edit on 2/5/11 by Pimander because: typo

I'm saying that if species X and species Y share a common ancestor, species X could have become before species Y and visa versa.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Thanks for actually fulfilling the purpose of my thread. That is, actually debating the subject. Looks like you beat me.

However, I don't read science journals. You can read all the science journals you want, and I'll keep reading things I can actually understand. I don't understand science journals. I haven't even gone to college.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

In my previous post I provided a link to an article from last year published in no other journal than Science. Article is based on draft genome of Neanderthal with Richard Green and Svante Pääbo, some of the most respected contemporary geneticists, as head authors.
edit on 2-5-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

In my previous post I provided a link to an article from last year published in no other journal than Science. Article is based on draft genome of Neanderthal with Richard Green and Svante Pääbo, some of the most respected contemporary geneticists, as head authors.
edit on 2-5-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


I'm not clear on this. Are you in agreement with the Neanderthal/human interbreeding?



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 

Yes, it's very likely that Neanderthals and direct ancestors of Europeans, Asians and Native Americans (one group at the time) interbred somewhere in Middle East.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


reply to post by rhinoceros
 


But like you said...it's likely. It's not definitive. I'm of the opinion that it's possible, but we still need more genetic data from Neanderthals (I still haven't found the chromosome count for them...which I'm guessing is an indication that it hasn't been determined).

Of course...it's unlikely that the result was one of skin tone...of course, we'll have to wait until more data is in to determine whether or not it happened and what effect it had if it did.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Did you read the article (it's open access). It leaves very little doubt to Neanderthals and ancestors of Eurasians interbreeding. Also it's very likely that Neanderthals had 23 pairs of chromosomes as they diverged from the modern human lineage less than 0.5 million years ago while the chromosomal fusion event is thought to be much older (believed to have happened around the time our lineage diverged from chimpanzees and bonobos).
edit on 3-5-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I'm not saying it's unlikely, I'll concede that it is incredibly likely. I'm just awaiting further research. I did read the paper, but I'm the sort who wants to reserve judgment.

Of course...the idea presented here, while based on something that is incredibly likely to have occurred takes the idea in an odd direction that seems unsubstantiated.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I'm not saying it's unlikely, I'll concede that it is incredibly likely. I'm just awaiting further research. I did read the paper, but I'm the sort who wants to reserve judgment.



However, the Neandertals are significantly closer to non-Africans than to Africans: D(YRI, CEU, Neandertal, chimpanzee) = 4.57 ± 0.39% and D(YRI, ASN, Neandertal, chimpanzee) = 4.81 ± 0.39% (both >11 SD from 0% or P



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I know that it'd a damn accurate study...I just have this thing for follow ups. Now, it does mention a bit about skin pigment genes...but there's really no particular reason to assume that this transfer would necessarily mean that it would be something that applied to all Europeans or even to a particularly broad range.

I'm a European by birth and descent...but I'm quite a bit darker than most other white Europeans. That's not counting when I end up outside for extended stretches. I tan far too quickly....

And there's also the ginger gene, which itself leads to different pigmentation levels. It's the only bit of genetics that my girlfriend knows...because she's a ginger herself and is an odd anomaly amongst a dark Mediterranean people.

Is it possible that it might contribute to some lighter skin pigmentation in some? Yes. Is it the likely overall explanation? Probably not.

Overall I was really just trying to play devil's advocate to push the thread up to a slightly higher standard.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I know that it'd a damn accurate study...I just have this thing for follow ups. Now, it does mention a bit about skin pigment genes...but there's really no particular reason to assume that this transfer would necessarily mean that it would be something that applied to all Europeans or even to a particularly broad range.

I'm a European by birth and descent...but I'm quite a bit darker than most other white Europeans. That's not counting when I end up outside for extended stretches. I tan far too quickly....

And there's also the ginger gene, which itself leads to different pigmentation levels. It's the only bit of genetics that my girlfriend knows...because she's a ginger herself and is an odd anomaly amongst a dark Mediterranean people.

Is it possible that it might contribute to some lighter skin pigmentation in some? Yes. Is it the likely overall explanation? Probably not.

Overall I was really just trying to play devil's advocate to push the thread up to a slightly higher standard.


I caught onto you playing devil's advocate. That's why I replied the way I did the last time
. I have no problem with being wrong, and I knew somebody would come in here to crash my party, but I was hoping he/she wouldn't just bash me with no information of his/her own to debunk my own ideas.

I play devil's advocate myself all the time, but it's usually something I know a lot about. Genetics isn't one of them, but it's something I would be thrilled to study. I've thought of being an anthropologist at times. Anyway, thanks for all of your input.

Oh yeah, and I do not believe in alien manipulation of our DNA. That was a tidbit I added for the conspiracy factor. It didn't go over too well, though.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


Well, I see potential here. You're working on a level of evidence rather than on pure speculation. I would suggest that you try going into PubMed for some good resources. A lot of the specifics get incredibly technical, but you'll be able to understand great chunks of it that you wouldn't expect.

And if you don't understand some of it? Well, try getting into contact with one of the publishers and you might actually get a pretty damn clear answer on a question.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I have a question. Let me preface by saying I know very little about genetics. I was wondering if it might be possible that humans could have evolved skin, eye, and hair colors different than what we have today?
I know between 13000 and 11000 years ago, humans experienced a genetic bottleneck and we have had to make use of a small portion of the genetic pool we once had access to.

Any thoughts?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrphenFire

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

It's bollox mate, you're right... But still a tiny bit funny you've go to admit.


I wasn't trying to be funny. I was postulating a theory that the interbreeding of Neanderthals and humans led to a drastic racial diversity. Fact: humans today have some Neanderthal DNA. Neanderthals are extinct, therefore the interbreeding of humans and Neanderthals positively took place. Fact: Neanderthals hailed from Europe, and humans hailed from Africa. (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). 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.

And I don't see how anyone can think I'm being racist. If you find racism in my remarks, you yourself are reading that into the discussion.


Adding to that, many southeast Asians and Polynesians have the genes of yet another contemporary hominid: the Denisovans.

Some Neanderthals are known to have had red hair. It follows, then, that they had light skin. And where in the world did we get O- blood from if not the Neanderthals?

I don't think you're being racist at all. I think it more or less reconciles the genetic evidence with multiregional theory, which not long ago were so diametrically opposed to each other that everyone assumed that only one could be correct. Cro Magnon originated in Africa, but they, the Neanderthals, and Denisovans all share a common ancestor: H. erectus. The evidence on the Hobbits is that they WERE H. erectus in dwarf form, which can happen when a population is isolated on islands for very long periods of time.

A million years from now, if we were to come back and look at the fossils of modern humans, we'd see slight morphological and genetic differences between Caucasians, Africans, Australian Aborigines, Asians, etc. Does that mean we're not all human?
edit on 2/8/2012 by HappyBunny because: Edited to correct spelling





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join