If you're not African then you're a Neanderthal

[weevil]

It's true!


All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm

If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.

Damian Labuda of the University of Montreal's Department of Pediatrics and the CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center conducted the study with his colleagues. They determined some of the human X chromosome originates from Neanderthals, but only in people of non-African heritage.

"This confirms recent findings suggesting that the two populations interbred," Labuda was quoted as saying in a press release. His team believes most, if not all, of the interbreeding took place in the Middle East, while modern humans were migrating out of Africa and spreading to other regions.

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html





So does this mean we're more or less evolved than Africans?


:biggrina:

[printerman]

A-Fricken (AFRICAN)

[alismith]

It's true!


All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm

If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.

Damian Labuda of the University of Montreal's Department of Pediatrics and the CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center conducted the study with his colleagues. They determined some of the human X chromosome originates from Neanderthals, but only in people of non-African heritage.

"This confirms recent findings suggesting that the two populations interbred," Labuda was quoted as saying in a press release. His team believes most, if not all, of the interbreeding took place in the Middle East, while modern humans were migrating out of Africa and spreading to other regions.

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html


So does this mean we're more or less evolved than Africans?
:biggrina:

This is misleading. Based on human evolution theory, ALL hominids can trace their roots back to Africa. So, even though other ethnicities can claim to be non-African, if you go back far enough, we all came from the same area in Africa.

It's just the smarter ones who moved away looking for higher paying, non-fast-food establishment jobs in the non-tribal areas of the world. Meanwhile, all those good-looking Neanderthal women, that kept following the wagon trains, enticed our ancestors with their seductively swaying hips and hairy boobs, so much so that the early migrating humans got side-tracked a little. These early Neanderthal women were the ancestors of the Gypsies that are still plying their trades in the European areas today.

After this little hiatus, the non-African ancestors spread out to all corners of the world, by canoe, train, cruise liner, or Concorde SST. Most inhabitants of the rest of the world welcomed them with open arms and the rest is history.

[weevil]

It's just the smarter ones who moved away looking for higher paying, non-fast-food establishment jobs in the non-tribal areas of the world.

After this little hiatus, the non-African ancestors spread out to all corners of the world, by canoe, train, cruise liner, or Concorde SST.




Sounds kinda like Detroit.


:biggrina:

[Oswald Bastable]

So they're saying Neanderthals brought something to the gene pool that africans lack?

:D

[old Grump]

So they're saying Neanderthals brought something to the gene pool that africans lack?

:DSun burn.

[weevil]

So they're saying Neanderthals brought something to the gene pool that africans lack?

:D




Perhaps.


It does prove that we're not all the same except for the color of our skin.



I do wonder what exactly it is that we did inherit from our Neanderthal ancestors besides big noses and straight hair.

[stinker]

This is misleading. Based on human evolution theory, ALL hominids can trace their roots back to Africa. So, even though other ethnicities can claim to be non-African, if you go back far enough, we all came from the same area in Africa.

So does this mean i can legally file a claim for affirmative action checks now?


I do wonder what exactly it is that we did inherit from our Neanderthal ancestors besides big noses and straight hair.

Flat ass cheeks.

[Ronwicp]

I do wonder what exactly it is that we did inherit from our Neanderthal ancestors besides big noses and straight hair.

High credit scores.

[coppertales]

Too bad I don't have a little black in me. Then I could rake in all the free stuff that is denyed me since I am 100 percent old, fat, and white......chris3

[5.56NATO]

The same people who spout this drek also say we came from apes, who came from fish, who came from single cell organisms, and on and on. I feel sorry for them.

[Mark Ducati]

My ancestors were named Adam and Eve.

Funny how the evolutionists often have ancestors named Adam and Steve.

[alismith]

The same people who spout this drek also say we came from apes, who came from fish, who came from single cell organisms, and on and on. I feel sorry for them.

According to evolution theory, human ancestors did not come from apes. Apes and humans share the same common ancestor, but went in different directions. The ancestor that humans and apes share was not an ape, nor was it human.

[coppertales]

According to evolution theory, human ancestors did not come from apes. Apes and humans share the same common ancestor, but went in different directions. The ancestor that humans and apes share was not an ape, nor was it human.

Then why do they act like apes gone wild down in south Dallas at night? You could not pay me any amount of money to go into that part of town......chris3

[alismith]

Then why do they act like apes gone wild down in south Dallas at night? You could not pay me any amount of money to go into that part of town......chris3

Some would say it's a culture thing. I would say it's a choice they are making.

[weevil]

My ancestors were named Adam and Eve.





Well how do you know Eve wasn't a Neanderthal?


:biggrina:

[Broondog]

Sun burn.


:lool:

[weevil]

According to evolution theory, human ancestors did not come from apes. Apes and humans share the same common ancestor, but went in different directions. The ancestor that humans and apes share was not an ape, nor was it human.



Good point.


Those who don't understand the theory seem to think we evolved from chimps or some "lower" life form that currently exists.


We didn't evolve from chimps we evolved alongside of them from a creature that lived millions of years ago. It wasn't a chimp or a human. Some of it's descendants stayed in the forest and over time became chimps and some wondered out onto the plains and became humans.

The millions of years seperation and adaptations to the different enviroments produced two seperate and more advanced species. The creature that existed millions of years ago and was their common ancestor ceased to exist millions of years ago.


Just as there was a split somewhere and some became Neanderthals and some became Cro-Magnons.

What's interestings is these seperate species interbred and produced a hybrid creature that eventually became modern European and Asian people.

[Cypher]

Good point.


Those who don't understand the theory seem to think we evolved from chimps or some "lower" life form that currently exists.


We didn't evolve from chimps we evolved alongside of them from a creature that lived millions of years ago. It wasn't a chimp or a human. Some of it's descendants stayed in the forest and over time became chimps and some wondered out onto the plains and became humans.

The millions of years seperation and adaptations to the different enviroments produced two seperate and more advanced species. The creature that existed millions of years ago and was their common ancestor ceased to exist millions of years ago.


Just as there was a split somewhere and some became Neanderthals and some became Cro-Magnons.

What's interestings is these seperate species interbred and produced a hybrid creature that eventually became modern European and Asian people.

Does it make sense to you that one lived in the jungle and is still a animal that flings it's crap and one moved to the plains and is so vastly different with the same time of evolution?

[Kadmos]

Does it make sense to you that one lived in the jungle and is still a animal that flings it's crap and one moved to the plains and is so vastly different with the same time of evolution?

Yes.

Something has to pressure the mutations to occur, in some way the adaptation necessary to live in a different environment happened.

A lot of orders have a rather large amount of variation.

Think about it, Primate is a Order, ranging from tiny little mouse lemurs, right up to gorillas and humans

But compared to some other orders that's actually little deviation.

Look at the order Carnivora, it goes from really tiny weasels right up to bears, includes dogs, cats, walrus's, skunks, etc.

That's a huge variety which appears to have a common ancestor.


Personally I'm not putting a lot of stock in the idea of interbreeding with Neanderthals, less then 5 years ago DNA said it was impossible, then they found out as much as 10% of the samples were contaminated with modern DNA.

My understanding is this study samples something like 20 Neanderthal DNA fragments and compares them to 5 people who had full workups done, 2 from Africa, 1 from Europe, 1 from Asia, and one native from the area around Australia.

To use this to say ALL modern non Africans have Neanderthal DNA seems ridiculous, same for the idea that no Africans have this DNA.

As to African-Americans there has to be a large percentage that have some white ancestors (although more likely to be male), one has to assume that a decent percent carries this gene...whatever this gene as.

As to behavior...it's not so long ago that the majority of white people acted in a manner we would find utterly despicable.

[JVD]

I saw before that there was a list of neanderthal features in modern humans and I'm pretty much batting 1000 with that... no news to me :crazy:

[weevil]

Does it make sense to you that one lived in the jungle and is still a animal that flings it's crap and one moved to the plains and is so vastly different with the same time of evolution?



What you think there aren't any humans that fling crap???


Chimps are actually very well adapted to life in the jungle, much more so than humans.


Now if you take them out of their native enviroment and stick them in a cage where they're bored stiff then yeah they'll sit around all day jerking off and flinging poo, just like humans in prison.

[alismith]

Does it make sense to you that one lived in the jungle and is still a animal that flings it's crap and one moved to the plains and is so vastly different with the same time of evolution?

When Darwin was gathering his data and studying the finches on one of the Galapagos Islands, he noticed that a lot of them looked very similar except when he looked at them up close. He saw that the various species of finches had different beaks. Some were short and thick (for cracking nuts and seeds); some were long, thin and turned down for gathering nectar from flowers; some were long, thin, and turned up for reaching into crevaces and pulling out insects and grubs. Their coloration, and size, was similar. The only real visible differences were in their beaks. However, he noticed that each had its own special song and would not interbreed with those finches of other beak shapes. They, also, built different types of nests.

The one conclusion he came up with was that they all came from the same ancestor finch, who had a short, thick beak and ate seeds. Since they were isolated and had a whole new environment to spread out in, over time they moved apart and started exploiting different niches. Now, one of two mechanisms could have happened: one being that the mutation was already in their genes, allowing for their offspring to be better adapted to fill that niche; or, as they started exploiting the new environment, some were born who were better adapted and those had offspring who carried on that trait. This occurred for such a long time, that the different groups of finches could no longer breed with those finches who had exploited other niches, thus giving rise to the different species that Darwin observed.

Other organisms are capable of these same types of changes and, over time, these changes make that organism so different that it can no longer breed with those organisms that still retain the original characteristics of the ancestor organism.

[Izzy]

The same people who spout this drek also say we came from apes, who came from fish, who came from single cell organisms, and on and on. I feel sorry for them.

Amen. Zero proof for undirected evolution.

Just another theory to replace the Torah /Bible / Whatever.

We all came from three men ( and their female mates) : Adam, Seth, Noah...the three bottlenecks of human geneology...all of us Africans, Europeans, Us Heb's and Arabs, Asians, Amero-Indians and Inidians, etc., etc.

The rest is race baiting. Keep in mind MOST theories in science are eventually proven wrong, that is how science is supposed to work, by attempting to disprove itself in order to discover truths.

Too bad they forgot about that.

[old Grump]

Monsanto's engineered seed, domestic dogs, dairy cows, riding horses are all products of directed evolution, eugenics was mans way of directing man's evolution, genocide is another way of directing man's evolution so the end product would look like the ideal man to the architect of the genocide.

Man is a primate and all primates dead and alive branched off the primate tree, we did evolve and we did it to fill the niche our ancestors found themselves in. Tall and slim on the hot plains, short and husky if in the extreme cold, little people if you grow up in dense jungles. It' isn't magic nor racism it is just fact and the fact that upsets people boggles my mind. Everyplace you have moisture, the right organic chemicals and water you have organic compounds, Some develop into life forms whether its fungus or slime or amoeba it doesn't matter.

Somewhere if you follow the gene path back we all came from a little rodent type creature smaller then a chihuahua. and I find that amazing and proof that God does exist because there is no way this just happened by chance. You can deny science if you wish, you are the ones I feel sorry for, you are missing out on most of God's creations and creativity because it doesn't match your Sunday school version of creation.

20,000 years ago we all had brown skin and black hair with blue eyes. 16,000 years ago one gene turned off the production of melatonin early and the result was blue eyes and a fair skin. Today if you have fair skin and blue eyes somehow you think that makes you superior but it only means you came from a people living in a cold area where winters were long and dark and you needed to process vitamin D fast and light skin processes it faster than dark skin. We aren't better just successful because that little trick allowed us too live up north where the raw materials needed for industry abounded. Coal and Iron. We could make better weapons we could be more successful on the hunt and that allowed us to breed more.

If you get sun burned and have blue eyes it was an accident of birth because of where your ancestors lived. Noah, Moses, and Jesus had dark skin, black hair and brown eyes, nothing like the pictures you are used to looking at in the pictures you grew up with. That didn't make them inferior it just meant they grew up in Africa with a lot of sun and where a hairy white primate like us would soon die from sunburn.

The same genes that make our hands make the wings of a bird, the pelvic fins of a fish, the toes of a frog and the hand of an orangutan. Same gene, no difference between our gene and theirs except when it was turned on and off. Next time you swat a fly or squish a mosquito or look at a big old fat sown sucklling her pigs remark on the miracle of God's creation for everything I just mentioned has the same DNA as we do. Just something for all you creationists to think about and why it is no surprise that we were able to breed with neanderthal. It is why a little Chinese Mang Ren man from China can breed with a Watusi a Fillipina and a Swedish country girl. All Homo Sapien, all same breed of animal, all have ther same gene pairs, only the way the genes turned off and on to give each of us our particular physical characteristics make us look different from each other.

[weevil]

Not me bud!



I come from a dirt doll that came to life when God breathed in it's nose!



:biggrina:

[alismith]

Amen. Zero proof for undirected evolution.

Just another theory to replace the Torah /Bible / Whatever.

Actually, there is zero proof for "directed" evolution, too. I'm assuming that you are referring to the Biblical account, or that some "higher" authority is responsible for how evolution works.

If you're basing your comments on what's written in the Bible, or what you've heard from preachers, etc., then you are standing on ground that is just as shaky as the ground evolutionists are standing on. There is no "proof" that the Bible is true, too. So far, only the Bible claims that what's in the Bible is true. There is no other source, written when the Bible was written, that claims the contents of the Bible is are true. People would jump all over Darwin, and those that believed him, if Darwin claimed that what he wrote were the truth and no other source were true. This is exactly what happened with the Bible. It was written, and those who read it believed it, and claim that what's in it is true. Both those who believe in the Bible and those who believe in evolution are basing their beliefs on faith. The only difference is that those who believe in evolution are trying to find ways to disprove it and supplant a better explanation. Evolution does not lend itself very well to the scientific method (neither does the Bible). So far, most of the findings have supported Darwin's original research. While it's not a law, and can't be claimed to be absolutely true, it supports what the fossil record shows; and recent studies have shown this far better than the creation account does.


We all came from three men ( and their female mates) : Adam, Seth, Noah...the three bottlenecks of human geneology...all of us Africans, Europeans, Us Heb's and Arabs, Asians, Amero-Indians and Inidians, etc., etc.

Ok, help me with this. Given that Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. After Cain slew Abel, Cain was given a mark upon his forehead so that no one would slay him. Here's where I get a little lost: IF there were only 4 people in the world (three now that Abel is gone), why did God have to mark Cain so no one else would kill him? Of course, Adam and Eve knew what he did, but there was no one else on earth. Yet, Cain fled to the land of Nod and went into a city and married a woman and had a son, Enoch. Uh, where did this city come from? Where did the people who populated that city come from? The math breaks down here.


The rest is race baiting. Keep in mind MOST theories in science are eventually proven wrong, that is how science is supposed to work, by attempting to disprove itself in order to discover truths.

Too bad they forgot about that.

I would argue with the word "most." However, to play devil's advocate, we'll use your "most" and still come out with how science works as compared to religion. Before I start, I want you to know that the definition of a theory is that it is an explanation of events based on the most current knowledge available. It is not a law and it may be true or not, but it is nothing more than an explanation. Many theories are not testable due to various reasons, but it still explains what is thought to happen.

IF 'most" theories are proven wrong, it is for two reasons; first, many theories are made with a limited amount of knowledge (limited by technology, or education, etc). The original theory is proposed based on the knowledge available at the time. As that knowledge increases, new ways to explain the original event are formulated and these are tested to see if they hold up; or, second, the original theory is shown by future testing to be inherently false and was made up of observations that were faulty in the first place.

If theories don't hold up, then they are dropped from consideration. If they do hold up, then are counted as evidence to support the original theory. The theory gains more credibility. Only when a theory can be proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt (through countless investigations, or new technologies), is it considered to be a law.

So, if "most theories in science are proven wrong," then the newer theories that supplant them are more correct. Very few theories are found to be totally wrong. Most of the "weaker" theories are given more credible support as time goes on.

Now, who is testing these theories to see if they're valid, or not? Other scientists, that's who. When a scientist comes up with a theory, he/she is placing their reputation on the line, so they are not going to just come out and say anything. They are going to spend years and years of research, and testing, on it to try to prove it wrong themselves. If they are confident it can't be proven wrong, then they publish it and open it up to the scrutiny of other scientists, who will do their best to disprove it. Only when they can't disprove it, will they accept it.

Now, the same can't be said for religion. Religion is a closed system. It forbids, or discourages, those who try to disprove it. That is called heresey. Religions do not want their belief systems to be questioned in any way. If one supports a religion, then he/she is accepted as a brother or sister. If one claims that something in that religion doesn't make sense, or may not be accurate, then that one is excommunicated, shunned, disfellowshipped, or in some cases, killed. Religion does not want anyone to question its authority, while science considers skeptcism healthy and encourages it.

I used to be a Bible-thumping believer, but over the years, I saw that many things in the Bible didn't add up and no one could give me an explanation to account for them. The more I read, the more it didn't make sense to me. My religious skeptcism grew until I no longer believed in any of it. However, I don't hold anything against any person who believes the Bible to be true and the Word of God. Their belief is far stronger than mine and I respect that. But, I am totally comfortable with not believing in the Bible. I can see no evidence for creation, nor can I find any evidence to support divine "guided" evolution, either.

As far as evolution having a direction, yes, it does have a direction, but it is a direction that is determined by things other than God. Life exists because it can exist. Organisms live where they can live. Organisms change to better adapt to the changing environments. Those who adapt, survive; those who don't, die out. There need be no other driving force. Life is because it is. It's poetic, if nothing else.

[weevil]

As far as evolution having a direction, yes, it does have a direction, but it is a direction that is determined by things other than God. Life exists because it can exist. Organisms live where they can live. Organisms change to better adapt to the changing environments. Those who adapt, survive; those who don't, die out. There need be no other driving force. Life is because it is. It's poetic, if nothing else.



Is it?

How can we be sure there is no God guiding the direction of evolution?


If we do not have all the answers how can we know for sure there is no divine power or force that guides the universe and directs the evolution of life?


Perhaps our religions and mythology are incorrect but most of them are based on observations of events that happen in real life.


Because we cannot understand God's mysteries does that really prove that everything is purely coincedence and just dumb luck?

Or is it possible there is some force or forces that guide the universe that are beyond the comprehension of the simple minds of apes that came out of the trees.


Perhaps there is no God or perhaps we simply don't understand who or what God really is.

[alismith]

Is it?

How can we be sure there is no God guiding the direction of evolution?


If we do not have all the answers how can we know for sure there is no divine power or force that guides the universe and directs the evolution of life?


Perhaps our religions and mythology are incorrect but most of them are based on observations of events that happen in real life.


Because we cannot understand God's mysteries does that really prove that everything is purely coincedence and just dumb luck?

Or is it possible there is some force or forces that guide the universe that are beyond the comprehension of the simple minds of apes that came out of the trees.


Perhaps there is no God or perhaps we simply don't understand who or what God really is.

Good argument. These are your beliefs based on your understandings. To you, they make prefect sense and are worth defending and you are doing a great job at that.

We can't be sure there is no God, just as we can't be sure there is. It cannot be proven either way. As the Bible states (loosely quoted), "We walk by faith, not by sight." If you believe in God and the Bible, then you believe based on faith.

If you believe in evolution, then you believe based on faith. Almost all of our beliefs are based on some kind of faith.

Old Gump had an eloquent argument for believing the miracle of God in everything he saw. I look at the same things and see the miracle of evolution. Again, faith and belief are the basis of what we attribute to things that we see and experience.

Even Einstein believed in God and saw the workings of God in everything he saw. Yet, no one would argue that he wasn't a great scientist and proposed profound theories, some of which are being cast in doubt as scientists are using newer technologies to test his theories, while many other theories he proposed have been supported by more tests.

Weevil, everything you said is possible, and as of right now, our knowledge, or grasp of our knowledge, isn't yet to a point that we can say, difinitively, which is right and which is wrong. Until we can prove, or disprove, the existence of God, or the existence of evolution, all our beliefs have to be based on faith. As individuals, we choose which "faith" makes us more comfortable.

This is the only statement you made that I would argue with: "Perhaps our religions and mythology are incorrect but most of them are based on observations of events that happen in real life." I would argue with it for two reasons, only because I have trouble accepting it as stated. The Bible mentions events that may, or may not, be true. I have a lot of trouble with Noah's flood and with creation as mentioned in Genesis. Either a lot was left out of the creation account, or it's not correct in the first place. The second reason is that only the Bible mentions many events that were not substantiated in any other account written by independent observers. Noah's flood is mentioned only in the Bible. One would think that if it happened the way the Bible said it happened (covering the whole world and wiping out every living thing except those on the Ark), then there would be other accounts written by other civilizations in other parts of the world, or there would be physical archeological/geological evidence of it happening. There are no accounts of the flood anywhere except in the Bible. This flood was to have happened about 6,000-7,000 years ago, yet many South American, Central American, and African civilizations are older than that and were not wiped out. Even the fossil record shows no major extinction of organisms that fit that time frame. Therefore, the flood, as described in the Bible couldn't have happened the way it is claimed to have happened.

Again, belief is what drives us and we choose what we believe in. As long as you can defend your beliefs, then you have every right to belive in them.

[nfa1934]

Xenu dumped my ancestors into a volcano from a spaceship that looks like a DC-9.

[weevil]

This is the only statement you made that I would argue with: "Perhaps our religions and mythology are incorrect but most of them are based on observations of events that happen in real life." I would argue with it for two reasons, only because I have trouble accepting it as stated. The Bible mentions events that may, or may not, be true. I have a lot of trouble with Noah's flood and with creation as mentioned in Genesis. Either a lot was left out of the creation account, or it's not correct in the first place. The second reason is that only the Bible mentions many events that were not substantiated in any other account written by independent observers. Noah's flood is mentioned only in the Bible. One would think that if it happened the way the Bible said it happened (covering the whole world and wiping out every living thing except those on the Ark), then there would be other accounts written by other civilizations in other parts of the world, or there would be physical archeological/geological evidence of it happening. There are no accounts of the flood anywhere except in the Bible. This flood was to have happened about 6,000-7,000 years ago, yet many South American, Central American, and African civilizations are older than that and were not wiped out. Even the fossil record shows no major extinction of organisms that fit that time frame. Therefore, the flood, as described in the Bible couldn't have happened the way it is claimed to have happened.

Again, belief is what drives us and we choose what we believe in. As long as you can defend your beliefs, then you have every right to belive in them.


Well I wasn't really refering to creation myths which all tend to be rather silly or allegories to tell the children, but rather religion as a means to aid the health and well being of the practioners and make them more fruitful so they can multiply.

In effect making them more fit for their enviroment and better able to pass on their genes. From obvious things to promote social harmony like not stealing and to promote breeding such as banning homosexuality. These are all thing that are designed to help the practioners survive and pass on their genetic codes even though they may not realize it.

And then there is the ultimate goal, the carrot at the end of the stick if you will. Whether it be Nirvana or an angel in Heaven, your soul will "evolve" into a higher being or plane of existence if you live your life right.

So while religion may not have the details quite right the basic goals are virtually the same as those achieved through evolution and natural selection. To survive and pass on your genes and to eventually evolve into a higher being.