We're All Essentially The Same Get Over It

reply to post by Kali74

I did not provide enough information for you to figure this out on your own?
While Neanderthal was once considered a separate species the fact that the bulk of the world now possess' Neanderthal genes is sufficient proof to demonstrate they were the same species so here we have two sub species.
This is why simple Neanderthal has now been reclassfied as Homo Neanderthal Sapiens while H. Sapien has been reclassified as H. Sapien Sapien to acknowege that fact.
Geneticist have now discovered that Neanderthal genes were passed to all but those H. Sapiens from south Africa meaning the bulk of the world today can now be considered a hybrid sub species.
This now only gives us a third sub species but points out there are at least two different sub species in existence today.
Only further research into possible gene flow from other prehistoric hominids can determine if other hybrid species have existed in the past or are even existing today.
Do your homework

reply to post by Golf66


Of course we are animals, but we do posses higher mental capabilities. We have concepts of morality and etiquette provided by society that other animals do not.

People that have the genes to be a psychopath generally do not turn violent unless they have a traumatic childhood. Nurture is what stops them from becoming killers.

Some people have genes that make them at a high risk of becoming obese. Just because you have them doesn't mean that you will become fat. Again, its how you are raised and the people you hang around that is the highest deciding factor.

Even if races did have different genetic traits of behavior there is direct evidence that shows that humans do not have to become what their genes directed them to be.

I understand that everyone is different in their skills, physical and mental attributes. But just because you can do extremely complex math problems or play baseball better than me..it doesn't make someone different in any TRUE sense. We are both still human and are still ALL generally the same.

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by newcovenant

 

or how about the video of the Obama fanatic talking about how "she not need to pay her mortgage anymore" because Obama had been elected- what a bright democratic spark that was eh

Funny. So you think she got away with it?

I have paid $100 thousand on a home that was falsely given a value and sold for $220G in 2006 so that loan could be bundled and sold as AAA risk security to another country probably China. Now the home is worth less than $75G and I still owe 120. It is a result of corruption in the housing and banking industry and nothing I could have done save remain homeless would have stopped it. So what if she doesn't pay? Isn't that up to the bank? Lot's of banks bundled these loans so fast and so carelessly in an effort to resell and unload the bad investment - they did not include the DEEDS to the land and property! Maybe she won't have to pay but chances are she will be foreclosed on like most people who simply say "I won't pay for my mortgage."
Yeah and I'm so damn poor I got an extra $400 every year from the IRS to help jumpstart the economy. I put it right back in. It's working for me.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Yes and no. Obviously those particular persons were racist but it tends make assumptions of what racists act, look and talk like. Racism is not exclusive to poor, ignorant, southern whites. It creates a new stereo type (or can), when surely not all southern white males are racist.

Of course not.
We are always dealing with percentages and likelihoods as it applies to reality. Sometimes those percent chances tend to lean one way or another. So we can make a number of predictions and be accurate - give or take a few.

Well this thread started out pretty well and then took a nose dive. Personally I just choose to ignore the foolish racist on this website and enter other more positive threads then ones like these. Though I would like thank the OP for making this thread as this website has been taking a nose dive in quality over the past few weeks. It's also good to note that one should never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups as shown by many of the comments in this thread.

reply to post by Puck 22


No you didn't. I've made my claims, provided some science...you're challenging it so back it up.

reply to post by Kali74

Now you're just being silly
You want me to 'prove' a question?
QUESTIONS:
Does not the fact that Neanderthal genes have been passed to H. Sapien demonstrate they are the same species?
Does not the existence of Neanderthal and H. Sapien demonstrate the existence of sub species among humans?
Does not the existence of modern humans with genes from both these groups demonstrate the existence of a third hybrid sub species?
These are questions. What exactly are you asking proof of?
You, on the other hand, have stated what amounts to a claim that all geneticists working on these matters are motivated by 'hate' and 'fear' and that scientific curiosity could not possibly figure into their motivation!
And as proof of this you offer the 'fact' that it is your opinion!
You are kidding right?
Check out the work of Prof Chris Springer.
Also Dr. Richard E. Green and fifty other members of an international research team have recently published a study for the American Association for Advancement of Science in their journal 'Science' that demonstrates a flow of genetic material between Neanderthals and early H. Sapiens.
I understand you may not consider this as authoritative a source as your own opinion but I wonder if you could provide any other type of scientific source to establish the nonexistence of scientific curiosity among geneticists....
Bottom line
I am forced to concede you are far too intelligent for me to argue with. Obviously. As I am unable to even follow your logic. It leaves me scratching my head wondering what the hell you are talking about. I can make no sense of it.
I still can not even grasp a concept as simple as 'proving my questions'
I can not find any explanation for this other than you are simply trolling me or you have no idea what you are talking about (but Mom said if I can't say anything nice....etc) or your logic is just far to advanced for me to follow.
But please be gentle with me. Remember I did not have the advantage of growing up with your opinions to fall back on when in doubt.

You laugh at me because I am different. I pity you because you're all the same.

- Unknown

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Puck 22

 

No you didn't. I've made my claims, provided some science...you're challenging it so back it up.

The problem is, that the Left want things both ways. We're all the same; until the member of a particular minority, "becomes the victim of a hate crime."

The concept of the hate crime by definition implies that not all groups are the same; because a crime is considered more severe, on the basis of the identity of the target.

I passionately hate the hate crime. I hate the concept. It is vile, fascist injustice, disguised as compassion, and generally supported by raw, unthinking, hysterical emotionalism. I have never read or heard of a single rational attempt at its' defense; nor can there be the possibility of one.

reply to post by Puck 22


Nice tirade. All I was asking you to do, as is common courtesy, is provide some links so that I could read the material you're referencing. It's not as if there's not a ton of pages come up under neanderthal research or anything.


At least you provided names of researchers and a publication in your last post. A link still would have been nice. At a glance...if Neanderthals had survived and were still around today, I would probably change the title of my thread to Neanderthals and Sapiens Sapiens essentially the same get over it.

But that is actually beside the point as every human today, is Homo Sapiens Sapiens of which there is no subspecies.

I've bookmarked the material so that I can read it a depth later. One thing you might be interested in (if you haven't come across it already) is the critiquing that study has received.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Two recently published papers describe nuclear DNA sequences that were obtained from the same Neanderthal fossil. Our reanalyses of the data from these studies show that they are not consistent with each other and point to serious problems with the data quality in one of the studies, possibly due to modern human DNA contaminants and/or a high rate of sequencing errors.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Puck 22

 

Nice tirade. All I was asking you to do, as is common courtesy, is provide some links so that I could read the material you're referencing. It's not as if there's not a ton of pages come up under neanderthal research or anything.

You're more tolerant than me, Kali. I stopped responding to Puck after his last screed directed at me. I guess there is a delicate balance that needs to be observed; attempting to be compassionate to those who need help on the one hand, and being able to identify those who are genuinely beyond help on the other.

reply to post by petrus4


It's my bleeding heart, I am a dirty liberal after all...

reply to post by Kali74

I have read your link and the only conclusion I can come to is that you did not understand it.
The criticism being offered is that two studies made of Neanderthal DNA show contradictory results indicating that one of these studies might be incorrect and the author's belief the sample might have been contaminated by human DNA.
But since both studies show Neanderthal DNA mixed with modern H. Sapiens it really does not matter which is correct. The practical end result of these two studies is that they produce two different timelines as to when the gene flow occurred.
No one suggest it did not occur and since different species can not produce viable young then the fact that gene flow did occur proves Neanderthal and H. Sapien were the same species.
Now unless you wish to claim they were exactly the same then I guess we're back to admitting the existence of sub species.
And if Neanderthal genes exist in some contemporary humans but not in others then I can see no other possibility than that a third hybrid species continues to exist in our modern world.
If you disagree with this it would be nice if you could state exactly what it is you disagree with.
Do you argue that Neanderthal was not human and therefore not a sub species?
Do you argue that Neanderthal genes can be found in contemporary humans?
Do you argue that contemporary humans exist who do not possess these Neanderthal genes?
Do you argue that if two groups of humans exist today with a possible divergence of as much as 4% of their genes that there might be differences in these two groups?
Calling me a racist and chanting 'your wrong' over and over gives me no idea of exactly what points you are asking me to defend.
Or was that the idea
So continue to call names if that makes you feel better but do you suppose you could work some answers to these questions I keep asking and you keep ignoring into your response?

reply to post by Puck 22


First of all, I never said you were wrong nor did I say you were racist. Second, I still haven't had time to do more than glance at the original studies. I didn't offer the link to debunk, I offered it in the spirit of discussion. But since you asked...

Neanderthals were human most definitely. They also went extinct at least 30,000 years ago. It is supposed that and lingering common DNA with neanderthals comes from our last common ancestor. It's worth further study for sure, but as of yet, it is theory on both sides.

Regardless, if there ever were hybrids between us and neanderthals...30,000 years is more than enough time to phase it out and any human today is 100% homo sapiens sapiens...no hybrid or subspecies.

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
There are definitely humans who are superior to most other humans for various reasons (genetics, better upbringing, innate willpower, etc) but race has nothing to do with it on a genetic or innate level. However, due to historical and social reasons, some races, in general, are enabled by governments and their own culture to become dependents, which will make most of them inferior regardless of other factors.

edit on 10-3-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: sp

It figures that in a thread that is aimed to end the racism on ATS, an ignorant post like this is made.

It figures that in a highly irrational thread on ATS, a self righteous, yet also highly irrational, post like this is made.

Originally posted by rexrugerblack
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant

 

I know which race you're referring to, I happen to be black, and I can assure you that what you see on television and in the media is not representative of the majority of black people. And as far as government dependence goes, well, let's just say that the gap in that aspect of things is narrowing very hastily. Peace.

I happen not to care what race you or anyone else is, but in the U.S., blacks do tend to be dependent.That by no means that all blacks are dependent. However, solely based on what I have seen there appears to be little improvement overall and, honestly, more and more Americans of all races are becoming dependent and, thus, inferior.
Communist and socialist caucasian and asian dependents are just as pitiful and pathetic as are the dependent wage slaves of corporate dominated fascist states. The genetics of race are not a factor. There are inferiors and superiors. Look at any species in nature. This same fact can be observed. We are nothing more than a short lived minor species that will have minimal impact on Earth in the long run.

Maybe the reason there are so many threads about it, is because all the MSM polls and talk about this group Vs that group. All of it due to the election of course...gotta keep the people informed about what group is "slacking" or being lazy and taking handouts.

Instead of gripping at this info that comes out that mysteriously seems to put the blame on every group except for the group truely responsible, we need to ask the congress why for the past 3 years they haven't done a budget but are still pulling down an annual salary of over $170,000. Half a million for 3 years of work that was obviously not provided, and THEY'RE complaining about people being lazy...please

reply to post by Kali74

A valid counterpoint!
No. Not really. If the genes contemporary man shares with Neanderthal were left over from the early hominid we both were descended from this would not explain why other contemporary humans who seem to be geographically confined to south Africa also do not share these genes.
Did they also descend from this common ancestor but at a different time....but then we would have sub species.
Did they split off from early H. Sapiens with Neanderthal genes to produce H. Sapiens without those genes?
But then again, this would mean acknowledging the existence of sub species as well as doing damage to the 'out of Africa' theory as this would necessitate the African H. Sapien was the last to emerge after the whole rest of the world had been populated.
While your suggestion would explain how contemporary man might have Neanderthal genes without cross-breeding it does not explain the existence of two distinct groups of contemporary humans, one with and one without Neanderthal genes and the obvious geographical segregation of these two groups.
I will concede I can not figure out how to produce the results existing in the world today without admitting sub species but this may be due to a lack of imagination on my part. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Care to try again?