Originally posted by Daughter2
How in the world could none of these bones be found? We found bones much, much older.

I discussed this earlier. Preserved and fossilized bones are very rare. Many environments where humans have lived can be especially hard on their preservation (jungles are supposedly the worst, something dies in a jungle all trace of them will be gone pretty soon). Bones only get preserved pretty much by accident, like they get covered by some unusual type of debris that is perfect for preservation. Most fossilized and preserved bones we find come in huge groups, like when a heard gets caught in an avalanche or a volcanic lahar. Or like the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, where things fall in, can't get out and the tar preserves them perfectly for ages. It's taken more than a century to find the relatively small number of bones we have of the human line. We'll keep digging and odds are that somewhere somebody got preserved from this species and it will be found.

Originally posted by Daughter2
I would like to know what these unique snippets control? Are they the genes for brain development or just physical traits. Are any of the traits dominant?

How in the world could none of these bones be found? We found bones much, much older.

Are they genes for brain development?? No not at all as much as you would want that to be true bwhaha. The DNA detected is snippets of foreign DNA leftovers, incomplete, not functional.

The bones will be found eventually. When they are found they will be like the ancestors of neanderthals. These other branch instead of going into Europe 400 000 yrs ago (this group eventually became what we know as neanderthals) stayed in Africa and were most likely a full developed seperate species from modern man before modern man even appeared 200 000 yrs ago. They co existed seperate from man for 150 000 yrs like the article states and interbred with them as late as 50 000 yrs ago.

To answer what you really want to know Africans and Europeans aside from foreign junk DNA are skeletally and genetically wait for it gasp THE SAME. Not only that but the foreign DNA from both Europeans and Africans came from the same evolutionary branch.

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by jd0Fengland
could this be the missing link?, or aliens? either way i look forward to watching about it on ancient aliens they are guaranteed to cover this soon lol

There is no such thing as "the missing link." The concept of a missing link is probably over a century old, and is no longer considered a valid idea in biology. Species change gradually over time, so what you will find are a great many "links" between them in the fossil record and, if we could get it, in the genetic record too. In between those "links" would have been even closer connections, too, then you find closer and closer relatives until the point you have a continuous gradation from one species to the next. We have just this sort of thing in the fossil record, with the occasional gap. The truth is, bones don't usually fossilize, they will break down in most cases, which is what makes it so hard to find them. Fossils or preserved bones only happen in very specific circumstances, accidents really, so it's unlikely we'll see every single little, tiny gap in the fossil record filled. But the preponderance of evidence of what we have so far shows this gradation between species quite well as it is.

well if we evolved from the monkey and there still around why aint the other animals inbetween us and a monkey its too grater leap from us to the monkey, unless its the sasquatch

Originally posted by jd0Fengland

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by jd0Fengland
could this be the missing link?, or aliens? either way i look forward to watching about it on ancient aliens they are guaranteed to cover this soon lol

There is no such thing as "the missing link." The concept of a missing link is probably over a century old, and is no longer considered a valid idea in biology. Species change gradually over time, so what you will find are a great many "links" between them in the fossil record and, if we could get it, in the genetic record too. In between those "links" would have been even closer connections, too, then you find closer and closer relatives until the point you have a continuous gradation from one species to the next. We have just this sort of thing in the fossil record, with the occasional gap. The truth is, bones don't usually fossilize, they will break down in most cases, which is what makes it so hard to find them. Fossils or preserved bones only happen in very specific circumstances, accidents really, so it's unlikely we'll see every single little, tiny gap in the fossil record filled. But the preponderance of evidence of what we have so far shows this gradation between species quite well as it is.

well if we evolved from the monkey and there still around why aint the other animals inbetween us and a monkey its too grater leap from us to the monkey, unless its the sasquatch

Well if modern Americans descended from Europeans and they're still around why ain't there other nations in between us and Europeans, it's too great a leap from us to Europeans.

Sounds silly? Yup. Also, we DID NOT evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor so your grammatically and logically bankrupt argument isn't even applicable.

Originally posted by Daughter2
I would like to know what these unique snippets control? Are they the genes for brain development or just physical traits. Are any of the traits dominant?

How in the world could none of these bones be found? We found bones much, much older.

It's very difficult to become a fossil. Most are preserved in hot, dry places like Montana. Which Africa definitely isn't.

I wonder, if and when they get the DNA results on that little conehead baby....
will they compare it to this "unknown" DNA found in some Africans?
And will they compare it to our "junk" DNA?
And if they do, will they tell us?

Originally posted by jd0Fengland
well if we evolved from the monkey and there still around why aint the other animals inbetween us and a monkey its too grater leap from us to the monkey, unless its the sasquatch

Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor believed to have existed somewhere between 25 and 30 million years ago. The two lines diverged, some became the monkeys we see all around the world today, some became apes and eventually humans (whom most biologists today classify as a species of ape). The ancestor we all come from was probably very monkey-like, and if it was still around today might even be classified as a type of monkey. But that species is long-gone. It's ancestors live today in many forms, adapted to many different types of environments and environmental niches.

99.9% of all species that ever existed on the Earth have died out. Those that do not die, evolve into new forms to take better advantage of the environment they are living in. This is how evolution works. Some monkeys survived into the present day because they were better adapted to survival than others. The same goes for apes, including all of our ancestors. It's quite likely that in many cases the reason many of these other pre-human apes died out is because their own descendants, or other hominid variants came into their areas and out-competed them. Those few Neanderthals who did not interbreed with humans in Europe and Asia were probably out-competed for food and land by the generally better adapted modern humans who were living in the same areas. Also, Neanderthals were particularly well adapted to survive during the last Ice Age and once that ended, their physical advantages for that environment probably became a hindrance in the warmer age that came next, the age we are still in.