Neanderthal breeding idea doubted

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Neanderthal breeding idea doubted


www.bbc.co.uk

Similarities between the DNA of modern people and Neanderthals are more likely to have arisen from shared ancestry than interbreeding, a study reports.

The origin of modern humans is a hotly debated topic; four main theories have arisen to describe the evolution of Homo sapiens.

All argue for an African origin, but an important distinction in these competing theories is whether or not interbreeding - or "hybridisation" - between modern and ancient humans has occurred.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
New Human Species Found
edit on 13-8-2012 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Well Well Well, I can't keep up.

More and more information seems to be flowing, are we finally going to find out the truth...could this be the year?

I had posted a similar story last week. (See related threads).

So, what are your thoughts. I'm interested to find out.

Further more, what is your take on the 3 million year old skull found in the 70's that has just made the news?



www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 13-8-2012 by CaptainBeno because: Terrible spelling!



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Fascinating.

What exactly are they saying or implying about hybridisation?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I find it hard to believe co-existing species wouldn't be shacking up. If they were anything like modern humans, just saying



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Hi Annee,

I'm not sure to honest, I'm lost in the amount of differing reports that have surfaced lately. The more detailed reports suggest that we co-habited together but other reports suggest we had nothing to do with them?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


True and I get your point, but also in those times of "hunter gatherer" did we see them as a threat? Were we able to craft better weapons and effectively cull said race until they were no longer a threat? I don't know, but I understand your point. Just because you look different or talk differently does not mean that I wouldn't find you attractive? Ahem!?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I find it hard to believe co-existing species wouldn't be shacking up. If they were anything like modern humans, just saying


Given that some modern "humans" will shag things with 4 legs it is difficult to imagine our ancestors wouldn't at least try to get it away occasionally with 2-legs-better!
edit on 13-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: crappy spelling



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

Neanderthal breeding idea doubted



Right...but bopping monkeys to get AIDS is totally believable sine the early 80s.

News is crap.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Doesn't make sense.
If the two races were more closely related at some point, then of course they were breeding together. It's impossible to say they never did. The story contradicts itself.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

Neanderthal breeding idea doubted



Right...but bopping monkeys to get AIDS is totally believable sine the early 80s.

News is crap.


People got AIDS from eating infected monkeys.

Don't be a jerk.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
We have about 3% Neanderthal DNA and it is even across all humans, so this means that either we mixed extremely early in our off branching or it might be left over from common DNA before we branched off.

Either way there wasn't any real interbreeding as we might have thought.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
We have about 3% Neanderthal DNA and it is even across all humans, so this means that either we mixed extremely early in our off branching or it might be left over from common DNA before we branched off.

Either way there wasn't any real interbreeding as we might have thought.


How do you know?

Is this your field of study?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I would believe this.

There are certain types of women I would avoid and have no attraction too, then there are others that I do.

I know of people who would get with anyone that breathes

They are lacking certain things in the evolutionary cycle.

They also have mono brows

So this article makes complete sense

Thanks for sharing



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
People are like sand at the beach; they tend to get everywhere, and in the strangest of places too.

I don't doubt our ancestors found themselves getting into some "strange" places.

The question, however, arises whether any conjugation between Homo Sap and any other hominid would have resulted in viable offspring. Like mules, offspring may have been possible, but, sterile.

Further evidence and indications of people getting into the strangest places exist where you find:

From the Neolithic onwards, images of zoophilia are slightly more common. Examples are found at Coren del Valento, a cave in Val Camonica, Italy, containing rock art dating from 10,000 BCE to as late as the Middle Ages, one depicting a man penetrating a horse, and Sagaholm, a Bronze Age cairn in Sweden where several petroglyphs have been found with similar scenes.

plus:

In 1468, Jean Beisse, accused of bestiality with a cow on one occasion and a goat on another, was first hanged, then burned. The animals involved were also burned. In 1539, Guillaume Garnier, charged with intercourse with a female dog (described as "sodomy"), was ordered strangled after he confessed under torture. The dog was burned, along with the trial records which were "too horrible and potentially dangerous to be permitted to exist" (Masters). In 1601, Claudine de Culam, a young girl of sixteen, was convicted of copulating with a dog. Both the girl and the dog were first hanged, then strangled, and finally burned. In 1735, Francois Borniche was charged with sexual intercourse with animals. It was greatly feared that "his infamous debauches may corrupt the young men." He was imprisoned. There is no record of his release.


SOURCE

It's thus not an improbable consideration that if people are kinky enough to conduct affairs with base animals, they're certainly not going to be shy about conducting affairs with something/someone that looks like they do (for the most part)

edit on 13-8-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
How do you know?

Is this your field of study?


Actually It has been a hobby of mine to follow and I read it in a number of books, here is a quick link to a Scientific American article. The key though is it is even across all humans so there are no patches of DNA larger than the steady 3% that would suggest some localized interbreeding.

Scientific American



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee


People got AIDS from eating infected monkeys.

Don't be a jerk.


Not sure if serious.

AIDS is man-made.

Don't make assumptions about peoples' intentions.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth

Originally posted by Annee


People got AIDS from eating infected monkeys.

Don't be a jerk.


Not sure if serious.

AIDS is man-made.

Don't make assumptions about peoples' intentions.


The AIDS virus originated in Africa from eating infected monkeys.

That is fact.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


And being injected with vaccines made from blood serum of said infected monkeys.

2nd



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee
How do you know?

Is this your field of study?


Actually It has been a hobby of mine to follow and I read it in a number of books, here is a quick link to a Scientific American article. The key though is it is even across all humans so there are no patches of DNA larger than the steady 3% that would suggest some localized interbreeding.



Yeah well - - since science is based on what is currently known or theory - - - its always changing - evolving - etc.

New Science - - is taking leaps into possibilities of the unknown. Wish I could find that article.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Wow, thanks for your input!

I had forgotten how bad we are as a human race, I had put that to the back of my mind.

Nowadays you would be laughed at..........................not hanged, strangled and burnt!!


the extreme lengths we went to in those days are horrific hey?





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join