The human family tree just got another — mysterious — branch

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.

reply to post by adept333



You argue from the perspective of pre-concieved socio-political conditioning, which neccesitates the avoidance and attempted dismissal of awkward facts and science, employing crass and obselete terminology such as 'junk DNA'.


Nowhere is it suggested in the article that the likes of the pygmies interbred with Neanderthal, which is a known species, whereas the article posits an unknown, these differences need to be understood, and your presumed role of righteous accuser and judge against those who wish to consider such differences challenged.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Kantzveldt

 

Damn, why do they always think its all about sex? Reminds me of some freaking mason lodges. What's wrong with the engineering theory? Maybe that's the proof that mankind's DNA has been tempered with. Two different species cannot successfully breed. Look at the mule: cross donkey, cross horse. They are totally sterile.

edit on 29-7-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

Absolutely nothing wrong with that theory but,
...I just want to point out that they thought it was impossible for sharks to co-mate too, but here a tiger and a white tip have done just that.
Must have been love at first sight then....?!

clearly this big arse beautiful rock has many more secrets to find

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


okay, thanks I'll check if I have time.

reply to post by AussieAmandaC


Yeah, but what about the baby? this thing was sterile, right? Sterility means end of the bloodline.

BTW the story is just cute... a star for you.

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 Kantzveldt
reply to post by swan001

 

It's a possibility, the regional variations that are being discovered regarding differant human racial groups are also making the suggestion that we are a singular species more tenuous.

We Are One.

Species, that is. That's just my gut feeling. We're different regional variants of the same species.

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.

reply to post by adept333


Adept333 - nope that's not really what I wanted to know. Project much?

I asked about brain development because there was a change that's not easily explained by mutations.

sfari.org... ment

www.guardian.co.uk...

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.

reply to post by Kantzveldt

Not my cup of tea (or better coffee - for me anyway).
But you also didn't get very much involved.

A