The Peon

Isn't it dangerous to eat so many lemons? I heard an urban legend (I'm sure that's all it was but perhaps an element of truth is in it) that if you eat so many lemons it will kill you.

Let's forget about Reality and Bliss' date=' it is for the few introverts who spend years of seeking in aloneness, who could afford to spend time amidst this busy modern world. I'm more concerned about the future of humanity.

 

We have created the problem and we have to solve it. We can't throw it on church or god. There are battery cars and solar cars, but if they were feasible enough, they would have been in mass production already because oil price is increasing day by day. What else do you think can replace oil? We consume oil in such large quantity that the new source should be as big as that. If there were other sources of energy that could replace oil, we should have started to phase out oil. Is there anything like that happening?[/quote']

 

 

I think your logic is flawed for 1 reason alone. Money. You can't really tax a solar powered cars energy. Oil and the combustion engine is a comfortable situation for world leaders. It provides millions upon millions in energy tax. Maybe im talking conspiracy theory here, but I would guess that the reason the combustion engine is still around has to do with simple cold hard cash.

Is this some sort of religious rant?

I was as much an atheist as anyone else, but didn't stop questioning and have found that this thing called Reality or Truth or whatever you name it exists and when you touch that there is so much bliss that you don't care for anything else.

I dont want to be filled with so much bliss I dont care for anything else. That sounds like a crackhead getting his fix. No offense...

Let's come back to one point, what will we do when we exhaust oil and coal? As I had mentioned, it will be obvious to a child that they cannot be replenished.

Do you really think if man faced a truely dire energy crisis he would not adapt? I think clearly what would happen is man would find another way, like he always has. Plenty of sources of energy exist where we would not have to rely on oil or coal.

Peon, chill out <smily>. i think you have discussed this issue seriously and intelligently. i had never thought of its genetic aspects before, and now i have. it seems you had, but then it seemed you hadn't. if you don't know whether it is a 'one in a billion'[/b'] chance or not of successful interbreeding, despite all your reading and analysis, that's ok and you can pass the buck if you want.

On one hand you tell me to chill out, then in the next you tell me it's ok to pass the buck. Please review your language it's pretty condescending. Perhaps at this point I am being overly touchy, but to be honest after being told to have sex with a monkey, then being told it would be a "bit of a plus" if I knew something, and finally being told "it's ok.. you can pass the buck" please forgive me if I reply in a hostile way.

As I mentioned before, your claims may or may not be valid. Ask a geneticist. I am not one and have no idea the chance of the two different types of genomes ability to create a hybrid. What I do know is that:

A> Neanderthals and Sapiens lived side by side for 6000-10000 years, providing plenty of time for lots of sex.

B> Credible modern day scientists admit the possibility of hybridization to occur, just as others deny it. I don't see how they would just brush off such strong and clear evidence they could not reproduce due to some chromosomal differences. In fact, the scientists who deny the hybrid possibility base there conclusions on mtDNA, and as an article I posted in an earlier page showed, this is a possibly flawed reason for rejection. Also, according to my understanding (I may be wrong), genetics is in its infancy as a science and much more is to be learned about this spectacular and powerful field of science.

C> An apparant Hybrid skeleton was found in Portugal.

D> Many genes such as the Ginger Gene are highly unlikely to have been mutated recently, and it is more probobal that it was an inherited neanderthalic gene.

E> Mongoloids, according to the most currently accepted theorys have been in colder climates much longer than caucasoids, yet they do not exhibit even closely the cold adapted features caucasoids have. This could be due to inheriting Neanderthalic genes, which was a species of hominid that lived in the icy fringes of Europe for over 200,000 years or more.

Thus my personal conclusion is that it is highly likely, dare I say certain, that some Neanderthalic genes however minute were passed into the caucasoid gene pool.

Relax man. We live in a pretty stable solar system. Either way, if man gets wiped out we can't say we didnt have a good run.

i did find this link related to chromosome number and mating

http://http:www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

 

i would like more examples' date=' and a mechanistic explanation of the Prezwalski/domestic horse hybridization event in relation to sequence similarity and the formation of trivalent chromosomes at meiosis, but this is a bit of a plus for you Peon <semi-smilie>.

so do you think there were singles bars in N-times?[/quote']

 

I never claimed to be an expert. I am making abstract observances to supplement the allready credible scientists who make the same claim I am presenting in this thread. And I am getting tired of your condescending overtones. Take your questions to the genetic forums, or I will ignore you like I am ignoring Milken. Lack of education in a perticular subject does not mean lack of intelligence overall.

 

but this is a bit of a plus for you Peon <semi-smilie>.

 

 

 

In regards to the body hair, I brought up that up because its yet another caucasoid trait that appears to be cold adapted that the mongoloids do not have. And as stated earlier, according to current out of Africa theory, mongoloids inhabited a cold climate for much longer than the caucasoids. Thus its yet another piece of physical evidence for trace genes in that gene pool from the Neanderthals, as Neanderthals would have most likely had large amounts of cold adapted body hair.

Hopefully this is useful because I read posts on cross mating. Are not most animals of closely similar color and so easily directed to the species mate? An interesting counterexample we live with is horses. Do they care about such different colorations? (You know what they say in the operating room: they're all pink on the inside.)

If you are typing of what I am thinking you are typing about, the process of imprinting takes an important role in sexual orientation. For instance, when younger, your brain defines what is sexually attractive to it. Thus, we tend to like and think of things which look "human" as cute. That is why when someone sees a little chihuahuas face they go "awww isnt it cute!" But when you see a squids face you are like "ewww." I dont think it has to do with color but more with structure.

Please pick up reading English so it's not so foreign to you, or get the post displayed in your native language. We've seen the actions of a prejudice, ignorant, fool in action. Don't jump to religious conclusions so quick. This is not a religious discussion. This is not a Creationist discussion. Furthermore, I used Evolutionist sources(duh!) and one source had nothing to do with Evol or Creation. Get hooked off the crack and get hooked on phonics!

OK I will do that if you promise never to return to this thread or trolling ever again. Thank you, your opinion on me is noted. Bye! *insert wavy smiley*

Back on subject, I was wondering another thing about the human condition. Do any populations other than caucasoids exhibit large amounts of body hair? From all the pics of gene pools I've reviewed from around the world, it seems that caucasoids and some middle easterners are the only population to exhibit large amounts of body hair, on the chest and back area. Some gene pools in the US exhibit this as well but my guess would be from inherited caucasoid genes. Could this be a form of cold adaptation? I may be wrong in this instance though, so I would like some feedback on this.

hi peon' date=' as regards ploidy, i am not the one to give you a complete answer. i am just working from a few scraps of information.

1) >30% of human fertilised eggs self-abort (forgive the term self-abort) - more than any other species. why? human embryo development is very complex. even at the one cell stage, there are many 'checkpoints' the cell has to go through before it will replicate. one of these 'checkpoints' involves some kind of chromosome counting. there is an obvious need for chromsome counting and without it any species would quickly die. mutation is important, but too much mutation is deadly.

[i']note,[/i] primitive organisms including fungii count chromosomes.

2) and this chromosome counting goes occurs not only in fertilised eggs, but in all replicating cells, for instance haematopioetic stem cells. again for the same obvious need and without it we would develop cancers at such an extraordinary rate that if we survived to birth we would be more tumour than human.

note, there are many connections between embryo and tumour development.

 

but someone will ask what is the obvious need?

gene dosage, my N-friends! too many copies of a gene upsets the balance.

perhaps you know, females have two x chromosomes but one of them is switched off at the time of conception. (amazingly yes, there is some kind of natural selection going on within a single fertilized egg for the best x chromsome in females.)

think it through...doesn't it make sense for cells to have evolved mechanisms to prevent outrageous gene dosage mutations such as altered chromosome numbers.

 

3) there is an old theory in cancer biology which is now gaining some favour again involving ploidy. the first microscopic observations of cancer cells showed that they frequently inherited the wrong number of chromsomes.

now the theory of cancer evolution has pretty much became fixed on the multiple hit hypothesis for tumourogeneis. however there is the strange observation that many of the key genes which are mutated in cancers are the same genes; for instance in the Ras genes often the same amino acid, eg K14, is mutated; but how can one codon be so fragile that it keeps on giving rise to cancers? this is where the polyploidy-first hypothesis of cancer gains in credence because it goes someway to explaining this seemingly unfeasible situation. and here goes, if a cell loses or gains chromsome material this will alter the gene dosage of the cell. now the cell has mechanisms to detect this and the result will normally lead to apoptosis of the cell. but a cell can make mistakes; no mechanism will be perfect. this will lead to a situation where the cell will try to adapt to its new genetic makeup. theory predicts that such adaptation would be expected to favour mutation of key genes, such as Ras genes, which are central to many signalling pathways.

 

i know my explanations aren't very erudite, but i hope they get you thinking. yes, i find it strange that no one has thought the ploidy question through. this is not an answer but i think you will find as you get older that there are a lot more bad scientists than good ones. maybe in the interests of science you should contribute to this question by sleeping with a great ape in the nearest zoo? just dangle some juicy bananas though the bars.

Your post was interesting until the end with the insult you threw with no apparant smiley to show you were joking. I am still going to lean on what I've read from credible scientists though. Sorry. I would think no scientist in his right mind would mention hybrids, let alone claim a fossil from portugal is one, as if something that simple were truely a roadblock to hybridism.

And by the way, ever heard of the humanzee? They had a chimp that died recently (if I remember correctly) that appeared to have a strikingly different DNA genome than that of a human or chimp. I agree with the hypothesis on that in that some sicko interbred with a chimp and a once in a billion thing occured. Although I did see it on the National Geographic channel so who knows the credibility of it. And regardless, Sapiens and Neanderthals lived side by side 6000-10000 years. Thats plenty of chances with mating that a fertile hybrid to be produced, regardless of how many "misfires" or sterile offspring occured.

Bla bla bla bla same crap over and over, insulting darwin by labeling him with some creationist wacko etc etc

Discussion is over. You just cannot accept defeat, or the fact that I have posted credible evidence and sources while you are merely blabbing away with a psychobabble and invented garbage. Typical creationist/IDist. I am not going to keep arguing the same points. I'm positive that any who read this thread will easily understand the points I've made and agree with the credible sources I have posted. I am now in the opinion that you are a crackpot like most religious people. Enjoy holding hands with your imaginary friend. See you in hell.

By the way, I am merely sharing a theory real scientist have come up with. I don't claim it to be mine. But I most certainly think the theory is true.

Proof that you are a crackpot:

5) I think N-man were Africans, or dark skinned.

And lastly

I don't have any cousins with heads shaped like that! The picture is not of a healthy N-manlol. You're crazy if you're passing that off as normallol' date='seriouslylol, come on lol. I can't stop laughinglol. I have a picture of a N-man skull that looks normal. It has half of a cone head.

[/quote']

 

LOLLERSKATES

 

 

Unless any new discussion on this debate is going to be opened I'll let you spout off your inane hypothesis. I however, will stick to talk.origins and credible scientific evidence rather than a garbled 200 year old creationist hypothesis which has long ago been proven false.

 

Lesson I learned from this: Dont argue with a creationist, its a waste of finger cartilage. Yea this is an ad-hominum, well suited for the circumstance in my opinion so shoot me. Much better than all the strawman garbage I've been dealing with here.

He's from Standford and his stating his opinion. I believe it's not true. Why? Inhaling cold air is a health hazard' date=' the body naturally tries to warm it up. A wider nose/nasal cavity is not a tight fitler, it's loose. A narrow nasal cavity better acts as a filter to block cold air. There are no good loose filters.

 

Furthermore, Neanderthal man having wide nasal cavities is an assumption that it's an adaptation. If their ancestors were from Africa as you stated it's possible they still had wide nasal cavities. He's assuming it's an adaptation to cold weather because Neanderthals lived in a cold environment, it's kinda circular. The real question is, what are the nasal cavities of living African and Caucasion populations like, since the pigment can be identified.

 

Read this: http://www.apva.org/resource/jjrc/vol1/do22.html

 

Caucasian ancestry is based on a moderately narrow interorbital width, a sharply defined inferior nasal border, a narrow nasal cavity width, a v-shaped palate and lack of alveolar prognathism. [/quote']

 

Sorry I don't read creationist website banter. Given that 99% of scientists are not Creationists I ask that you post mainstream acceptable material.

 

Secondly, it is not merely an "opinion" it is a valid theory. I point you again in the direction of credible evidence for it, an article from a university website quoting a credible magazine. (although granted the article disagrees with the viewpoint of hybridization, it does agree on the nasal issue at hand):

 

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/nose.html

 

And a quote:

 

The apomorphies are the development of an internal nasal margin bearing a

well-developed and vertically oriented medial projection, the swelling of

the lateral nasal cavity wall into the capacious posterior nasal cavity,

and the lack of an ossified roof over the lacrimal groove." ~ Jeffrey H.

Schwartz and Ian Tattersall, "Significance of of Some Previously

Unrecognized Apomorphies in the Nasal Region of Homo Neanderthalensis,"

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, 93(1996):10852-10854, p. 10853

 

*SEE PIC BELOW*

 

 

It's not baseless' date=' so I'll repost it:

 

The same bones mentioned in your article. Exactly it's an African(dark skinned) group of people could very easily have vitamin D deficiency in a cold environment; therefore, being more susceptible to other diseases.

 

I agree there were some healthy individuals but the unhealthy ones were uses to say they were sub-human. Since we agree they were human, the odd shaped bodies demand an explanation. Francis Ivanhoe says this in an older issue of Nature called "Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?"

 

Virchow had reported that the eanderthal man’s ape-like appearance was due to a disease known as rickets, which is a vitamin-D deficiency characterized by overproduction and deficient calcification of bone tissue. It causes skeletal deformities, enlargement of the liver and spleen, and generalized tenderness throughout the body. Dr. Cave noted that every Neanderthal child’s skull studied thus far apparently was affected by severe rickets. When rickets occurs in children, it commonly produces a large head due to late closure of the epiphysis and fontanels. [/quote']

 

They are "odd shaped" to you because they are a cousin of homo sapien, granted although I believe they are still sapiens, they are distinct in bone structure much as a mongoloid skull is distinct from a negroid or caucasoid.

 

Again, I point you in the direction of this article in the hopes you read it fully.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html

 

I will even quote the important parts for your convenience:

 

In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer.

 

Please note that that was even before darwin! His thoery was based on his first observations, predarwin. Yet the church still clings to this rubbish as if it was gospel.

 

More quotes for you:

 

Rickets does not produce a Neandertal, or Homo erectus morphology; it is clear from many sources (Reader 1981; Tattersall 1995) that the original Neandertal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a common disease.

 

Here is evidence of the above statement:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/rickets.html

 

It even includes a pic for your viewing pleasure so you can see what rickets really looks like. A far cry from Neanderthals backward curving bones. And oh, by the way, the ricket sufferers in that pic look pretty damn caucasoid to me. Contrary to your statement that they don't get rickets.

 

The long bones of Neandertals, like those of rickets victims, are often more curved than normal, but rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur, while Neandertal femurs curve backwards (Klein 1989).

 

I think the rickets thing is case closed.

 

Cauasions really do not get rickets. An adults with the disease(goes by different name) have some widening of the bone and some curvature issues but it's not fatal.

 

Another idea is Pagets disease which is hereditary. An obviously localized population like Neanderthal (pygmies all short' date=' Masaii all tall, etc.) would have a small gene sample and a hereditary disease would easily had widespread affect. Generally, Pagets disease can cause bones to become shorter and larger and mostly affects the skull, hip, pelvis, legs, and back. [/quote']

 

Again, assumptions. Either way, further enhanced DNA testing that will be carried out will most undoubtedly, as with all creationist claims, prove it false. Not to mention, small gene sample? You do know that more Neanderthal bones have been found than any other hominid ever? You do also know I hope, that Neanderthals have been found in an area covering more land than the Roman Empire? We are talking from Spain to the middle east. How is that a small gene pool that a hereditary trait like you speak of could be passed around? Unless of course they got it when God threw them into that enviroment at the Tower of Babel when they were relatively few?

 

As for caucasoids not getting rickets, evidence please? Enviromental circumstances are one thing, but genetic is another.

 

 

 

If you looked into it' date=' England had rickets problems with dark people living in the area. A dark skinned person can possible eat enough to survive just fine but living in those conditions not get any Vitamin D from the sun. The more melanin you have the more sun you need to absorb Vitamin D.[/quote']

 

Thats a load of crap. I wish a doctor was reading this thread to blow that out of the water. Evidence please to back up your claims that if someone eats healthy they still get rickets from a lack of sunlight. In fact, I would go as far as to say modern man spends less time in the sun due to working indoors in our age of offices and technology, than any human in history in a general sense.

 

 

I could pull out another issue of Nature that basically says were distinct and not related. Most the DNA studies say we're either not related, or maybe a drop. There's also articles suggesting they're not related to modern caucasions at all.

 

I wrote a few posts on this allready above, which you obviously did not read. Please go over my above posts to answer this.

i have to stick to the ploidy and mating question.

don't the wolf and coyote have the same number of chromosomes?

39 pairs' date=' or 38 pairs if, like me, you don't count x-y as a pair.[/quote']

 

 

University web page:

 

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html

 

A quote from the article that might raise an eyebrow:

 

"The problem with the DNA research was the interpretation," Dr. Trinkaus said. "It's demonstrably wrong. All that they showed is that Neanderthal biology is outside the range of living humans, not modern Homo sapiens back then."

 

I was also not aware that Neanderthals had 48 chromosomes. I also had trouble finding information on this. I find it odd most credible sites and scientists I have read in regards to this issue dont state this problem, such as:

 

Serre and his colleagues found no evidence of mtDNA gene flow between modern humans and Neandertals in either direction, but could not rule out the possibility of limited gene flow.

 

That was from talk origins. I don't see how so many credible scientists would over look something so simple as a chromosomal pair blocking the potential for hybridization.

 

Another quote below:

 

However, the evidence from mitochondrial DNA is somewhat ambiguous.

 

"The mitochondrial DNA on its own can't tell us if we're a distinct species," he explains.

 

"It depends what mammal you take. There are some species where the difference in mitochondrial DNA between us and Neanderthals would say they were a different species.

 

"Whereas in chimpanzees, our closest relative, you could contain the variation between us and Neanderthals in a single species alive today in Africa."

 

Scientists need to recover better DNA from our fossils, especially the nuclear DNA.

 

"Each gene has a separate evolution so to understand Neanderthals properly we will need different bits of their DNA to see if they're all telling us the same story," he adds.

 

 

I would love for you to point me in the direction of where you got your info from. Also, does a species having an extra chromosome pair totally block out the potential for a hybrid? I am not too clear on this and would like an answer. In the end, I guess time will tell now that clearer and better DNA analysis techniques are being used. I will continue searching for answers today to see if I can come up with more info myself.

 

Oh and lastly, from talk origins:

 

The studies of Neandertal mtDNA do not show that Neandertals did not or could not interbreed with modern humans. However, the lack of diversity in Neandertal mtDNA sequences, combined with the large differences between Neandertal and modern human mtDNA, strongly suggest that Neandertals and modern humans developed separately, and did not form part of a single large interbreeding population. The Neandertal mtDNA studies will strengthen the arguments of those scientists who claim that Neandertals should be considered a separate species which did not significantly contribute to the modern gene pool.

 

Again the possiblity is NOT ruled out.

it is a good topic but my main concern is the mating problem' date=' 24 + 23 = 47 ! i want to use the term aneuploidy but i am not sure how it applies.

is there any research where mating can occur between species of different chromosome number?

 

i did find a reference

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1323485.stm

reporting that no neanderthal genes were found on the Y chromosome.

i am not sure of the significance of this but i have read that >90% of the Y chromosome is a gene junk yard.[/quote']

 

 

Read my last post on page 1. I believe that answers the question. Especially the example of the coyote and the wolf. Also, the article you provided is speaking of evidence against the multiregional theory, which I don't believe in personally and I agree with the article. I am all for the out of Africa theory. What I am trying to express here is the unique genetic legacy that our African ancestors might have picked up along the extraordinary journey they made across the globe.

I've got another funny e-mail chain thing.

 

But it's rather long so It may take up too much space if I post it.

By all means please do.

Hey The Peon. Would you mind messaging me the email that sent you that? I would love to play around with "Becky" I've heard funny stories of people messing with Nigerian scammers....

She/He did not provide me with an email, but on the bottom is "its" yahoo ID. You might be able to scavange the email from that. When the scammer was referring to mailing, it was referring to mailing the cash to the address provided.

i have learnt much from this thread!

 

questions which now interests me' date=' inspired by this thread, is whether a great ape (with 48 chromosomes like N-man) and a human have ever successfully mated? was N-man mostly a one N-woman guy (i am curious did they mate like [i']homo sapiens[/i] too)? anyone got a good explanation for why N-men went extinct?

Out competed for territory is a distinct possibility. Sapiens out of africa had superior technology and hunting skills. As to why Neanderthals did not catch on and adapt is a mystery that leads me to believe alot more war between the two hominids was present than most would like to believe. Aggressive land claims and removals were probobly taking place over the course of the 6000 years or so it took to wipe out the Neanderthals.

That was your logic' date=' that prehistoric humans would have mated with the neanderthals, not mine. I didnt give my opinion.

 

Also I am well aware interracial couples are not just confined to caucasians and blacks. Interracial couples are just not that high compared to pure racial couples even with globalizations/etc.

 

I never claimed you were caucasian. Notice also I quoted the words caucasian because with modern anthropology, the ideas of racial subgroups (such as caucasian, mongoloid and negriod) simply dont exist. The question was, given that you were a caucasian, do you think having neanderthal genes to be a good thing or not? Im trying to understand the underlying tones behind the motivation for your claims.

 

Everytime people claim having 'greek' caucasian features the way they are (blond hair, blue/green eyes white skin complexion) are the result of environmental factors, I would like to know the reason why they think so. I dont think having a big nose is a physical advantage in keeping the air warm for your lungs. First of all the nose doesnt improve heating of air intake that much. A larger nose means also that the surface area is larger and hense greater heat loss from convection, etc. Basically Im pointing out that all of this is just free for all debates/opinions = philosophy.

 

Everytime I hear people use such terms as negroid/mongoloid/caucasian then try to justify some sort of philosophical agenda they have (disguised as science), I tend to be a little weiry if it is really backed up by a hint of racism. I get a little more wiery when they claim that caucasians have neanderthal genes then claim that neanderthals have bigger brains (even though bigger brain does not mean higher intelligence btw); it just seems like a start on the whole justifying superiority thing.[/quote']

 

 

Just... sigh.... Does this look like a White power forums? This is a science forums and the thread was strictly meant for that. Please take this trolling elsewhere. As for my "attack" on you I apologize, I was agitated by what I am percieving as needless trolling on a good topic.

 

As to the one decent question you asked, I dont think having neanderthal genes would be either good or bad necessarily. In fact some of the research I have done has lead me to believe that some mental disorders are possibly caused by the genes, hence it would do more bad than good. (Which brings up an old curiousity I always had, which is the question as to why 90% of documented serial killers are "white").

 

In regards to your questioning the larger nasal cavitys use in cold enviroments, please read the link I posted above in regards to it. It will enlighten you.

What was I thinking' date=' traveling humans, it's preposterous. The human race did come from Africa in waves. Not only that, but some of the neanderthal bones look VERY human.[/quote']

 

The Neanderthals did come out of africa, in the form of Erectus. But they did not evolve into neanderthals until in Europe. Thus, Neanderthals are not from Africa. And of course they look like human bones, they are human.

 

 

 

This is false. Look at the picture of neanderthal man, there are plenty of people from tropical climates with wide noses and nasal cavities. It's not an advantage in a cold region. A wide nasal cavity is better suited for a hot area . No science background neccessary it's a feature more commonly found in people descendand from hot climates.

 

A wide nose does not mean a large nasal cavity. You are looking at the exterior and assuming the interior. Thats a poor way to do scientific analysis. Im sure if you do some research you will find that indeed the nasal cavity in a neanderthal was larger and unique (more evidence they were not diseased humans) compared to sapien sapiens.

 

I quote this from an article on the stanford uni website:

 

"Several explanations have been advanced for the Neanderthal mid-facial architecture:

 

1.An adaptation for warming inhaled frigid air as it passed through the enlarged nasal cavities; a mean of condensing and conserving moisture in exhaled breath; and a secondary consequence in the facial region of severe chewing pressures centered at the front of the jaw..."

 

The same bones mentioned in your article. Exactly it's an African(dark skinned) group of people could very easily have vitamin D deficiency in a cold environment; therefore, being more susceptible to other diseases.

 

That statement means nothing more than an assumption, baseless granted that all neanderthal bones are quite similar, contrary to a population that would have had many healthy individuals survive into fossilhood.

 

The last two statements were not meant to be clear. I was going to insert the Tower of Babel as another reason they were in Europe but I didn't want to mess with anyones head like that.

 

Thank you for keeping your psuedobabble out of this forum. In my opinion the only head messed with is someone who believes in that. BTW what are you implying (sorry I should not be getting into this but I cant help it). Are you implying that God singled out the Neanderthals for some reason and placed them in an enviroment they would get rickets and live sickly in? Why did he give other races a better climate? Why pick and choose? Was it a random dispersion? Why did some races get great farmland, like Italians, while others got barren rocky highland like the scottish? Why were some people placed on small islands in the middle of nowhere, like the polynesian tribal members they found recently who were still living like stone age humans?

 

Compare here:

 

 

Note the disease can make bones widen or it's just a large race of humans. We have pygmies in Africa' date=' we have the Massai tribe where the average man is 6'4 or 6'5 and these groups haven't mixed with any other groups.

 

In addition adults with rickets(osteomalacia) may not even have symptoms until they're older, and other diseases are prevalent with vitamin D deficiency.[/quote']

 

Another assumption. And pray tell, why dont we see a rickets explosion in the cold climate populations today? Or in any period of european history since the dawn of writing? Maybe my history is a big foggy...

 

 

This is irrlevant since DNA evidence has shown Neanderthals are not ancestors of modern humans' date=' but an extinct group of humans. The dates do not match up at all. They possibly died of the diseases brought about from vitamin D deficiency. The N-man sample is also very small.

 

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030512/neanderthal.html[/quote']

 

Please refer to the post I posted before this one. It explains quite well how the results of the "DNA evidence" you mention have been skewed.

 

In regards to your "N-man sample being very small, " I am assuming you mean we dont have many neaderthal bones? Its actually quite the opposite, if I remember correctly we have more neanderthalic bones than any other species of hominid to walk the planet.

 

 

 

I also contend they were too human to be sub human. They had our walk' date=' larger than average brain and size. Cuivier (sp), one of the greatest of his time had a brain size of 1800 or something, and he's human, right. Neanderthals were thought to have brains a little smaller.

 

From Lucy to Language page 99 says Neaderthals could sew with a picture of a needle that looks like one in use today.[/quote']

 

Who said they were subhuman? The modern concensus among scientists today is that neanderthals were completely homo sapien. I agree. Most classify them now as Homo Sapien Neanderthalis.

 

Neanderthal brain size was comparitively larger than modern sapiens. This might be due to the following, again taken from the Stanford uni website:

 

"The Neanderthal pelvis also seems to be highly characteristic, so much that in incomplete specimens the pelvic canal appeared to be unusually large, prompting Erik Trinkaus to postulate that gestation was prolonged in this species, the infant at birth therefore being larger than in modern humans."

 

As some scientists can tell you, a larger brain (or more intelligent I should say) requires a more pronounced delayed neotany (hope I spelled that right). Thus this would all fall into place together.

 

 

And you are right about neanderthalic technology, they have alot of good development, but nothing like the invading african cousins who had much more sophisticated equipment and hunting techniques.

 

In conclusion, they made on-pitch flutes! Thank you peon for the challenge. . . . and I agree with you on women. . . .

 

I am not the best debater in the planet, and I am sure my arguments contain some logical fallacies. I apologize for that, but please bring forth more substantiated evidence when presenting your claims.

You do know that neanderthals have 48 chromosomes right?

I have read this over twice, and it appears to answer your question with a statement ( though admittedly I am not a geneticist or a biologist so I am not 100% sure of the credibility of this article ):

""Whereas these modern human sequences differ among themselves by an average of 8.0+/- 4.1 (range 1-24) substitutions, the difference between the humans and the Neandertal sequence is 27.2+/-2.2 (range 22-36)" (Krings et al, 1997, p. 24)

They make a big error here by comparing the range of human mtDNA variation (1-24 differences from the standard sequence) with the experimental error in determining the Neanderthal variation (22-36). This is an equivocation.

If Neanderthal mtDNAis outside of the range of human variation, it is only slightly beyond that range and may be within it. The experimentally determined minimal distance between Neandertals and us is 22 substitutions. (Krings et al, 1997, p. 24-25) Modern humans can have as many as 24 substitutions among them, and they are still considered human.

In spite of the press reports, the authors themselves acknowledge that this does not rule out the inclusion of Neandertals in our ancestry. They write,

"These results do not rule out the possibility that Neandertals contributed other genes to modern humans." (Krings et al, 1997, p. 27)

This is because of a phenomenon called crossover. Genetically, the mitochondria only can determine whose mother left her mtDNA in the humans. But other women left their nuclear DNA to us but they didn't leave their mitochondria. There is a phenomenon called cross-over which occurs on all chromosomes except the X and Y. During the formation of the sperm or egg a chromosome makes two copies of each.

000000000000 Chromosome 1 from mother

111111111111 chromosome 1 from father

During meiosis, each doubles and you have this situation:

000000000000 Chromosome 1 from mother

000000000000 Chromosome 1 from mother

111111111111 chromosome 1 from father

111111111111 chromosome 1 from father

Then cross over occurs which scrambles the chromosome's lineage.

000000000000 Chromosome 1 from mother

000000001111 Chromosome 1 from mother and father

111111110000 chromosome 1 from father and mother

111111111111 chromosome 1 from father

This phenomenon occurs rapidly enough so that no one can follow a lineage of nuclear DNA.

The implications are that as long as no direct maternal lineages from Neanderthal exist, there still could be Neanderthal genes in our lineage.

The best evidence of that is from the H-O mandibular foramen. This is a weird type of hole in the jaw where the nerve goes through. There are two types of this foramen: normal and H-O. The H-O foramen is described by Wolpoff and Caspari,

" "The mandibular foramen, for example, is an opening on the inside of the vertical part of the mandible for the branch of the mandibular nerve that reaches the teeth. This is the uncomfortable spot a dentist tries to reach with a nerve block for the mandibular teeth. In the H-O form the rim of the opening has an oval shape with the long axis of the oval oriented horizontally. Alternatively, in the normal form the rim may be broken, along with its lower border, by an unbridged vertical groove. The broken rim is the usual form in living populations. "The horizontal-oval mandibular foramen is virtually unique to European fossils. It is found in almost no other remains, including Late Pleistocene Africans and the Skhul/Qafzeh sample, the putative alternate ancestors of the post-Neandertal Europeans. But the horizontal-oval foramen has a significant frequency in the subsequent post-Neandertal populations of Europe and only decreases to rarity in recent Europeans. The exact form of the foramen opening is an example of nonadaptive equivalents. It is important that the foramen be there (the nerve must enter the mandibular body), but it makes absolutely no difference which form its rim has."~Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Caspari, Race and Human Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 296-297

In order to explain this without Neanderthal genes in the population of Europe, one must assume that the H-O form arose by mutation a second time, only in European fossils. This is not found in non-European populations!

It is also only found in Neanderthal fossils with one exception. Frayer notes "For example, australopithecines totally lack the trait, and the H-O foramen is exceptionally rare in the fossil record of Homo before the neanderthals. In pre-Mousterian Europe the H-O form is absent in specimens such as Mauer and Arago 2 and 13. Each of these have the normal, V-shaped morphology. From my survey of the literature and inspection of casts and original specimens, the only non-European fossil which possesses the H-O trait is an archaic Homo mandible from Olduvai Gorge (OH-22)."~David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal and Upper Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne, 2:9-69, p. 29

Here are the frequencies of the H-O foramen The African Eves are the anatomically modern humans:

European H-O Normal

Foramen Foramen

% %

Neanderthal 53 47

African Eves 0 100 (the invaders)

Skhul/Qafzeh 0 100 (the invaders)

Early U. Paleolithic 18 82 (supposedly genetically separate)

Late U. Paleolithic 7 93

Mesolithic 2 98

Medieval Europeans 1 99

David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal and Upper Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne, 2:9-69, Table 7, p. 31

As to claims of Neanderthal being a different species, this may be quite erroneous and unproven. Even if there has been 550-700,000 years of separation between anatomically modern men and Neanderthals, this does not mean that the Neanderthal were unable to interbreed with us. Consider the coyote and wolf,

"The coyote and wolf have a sequence divergence of 0.075 +/- 0.002 and diverged about one million years ago, as estimated from the fossil record. consequently, because the sequence divergence between the most different genotypes in clade 1 (the most diverse group of dog sequences) is no more than 0.010, this implies that dogs could have originated as much as 135,000 years ago. "~Carles Vila et al, "Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog," Science, 276(June 13, 1997):1687-1689, p. 1689

Why is this important? Because the coyote and wolf can mate and produce fertile offspring, some believe that they are really the same species and according to some definitions they would be. If coyote and wolf, which diverged more than a million years ago, and Neanderthal diverged only 600,000 years ago, why must we automatically feel that they are a different species? While I haven't seen the Cell article, I will bet that the divergence is less than .075 because Neanderthal and modern man diverged according to the report, 500-600,000 years ago.

Finally, there is a morphological intermediate between Neanderthal and archaic Homo sapiens in the Atapuerca people I mentioned on some posts about the earliest burial. They lived about 600kyr ago and are at the perfect time for the split between the lineages. If those people are the ancestors of Neanderthal, and they were human, with burial rites, then their descendants, the Neanderthals, also would have to be people.

I think the biggest disappointment was the authors' using out of date articles to date the origin date of modern men. They did not even reference Templeton's work which most authorities agree, destroyed the 120-150,000 year old Eve theory. There still was an Eve, but Eve was much older. As noted above, there are up to 24 differences in the mtDNA of modern humans. This requires some time for this amount of divergence to occur. They write:

"To estimate the time when the most recent ancestral sequence common to the Neandertal and modern human mtDNA sequences existed, we used an estimated divergence date between humans and chimpanzees of 4-5 million years ag and corrected the observed sequence differences for multiple substitutions at the same nucleotide site. This yielded a date of 550,000 to 690,000 years before present for the divergence of the Neandertal mtDNA and contemporary human mtDNAs. When the age of the modern human mtDNA ancestor is estimated using the same procedure, a date of 120,000 to 150,000 years is obtained, in agreement with previous estimates.(Cann et al., 1987 Vigilant et al. 1991)." Krings, Matthias, et al, 1997. "Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell,90:19-30, p. 25

The authors are obviously using two different rates (or alternatively a different amount of divergence) to estimate the divergence of modern human mtDNA and that of Neandertal. The time it took for modern human populations to accumulate 24 differences among themselves, can not be significantly less time than it took for Neandertal to accumulate 27 differences. Yet the authors seem to indicate that it was. Mathematically, this is fallacious.

The Cann et al and Vigilant articles have been disproven by the work of Alan Templeton (Templeton, 1993). Trinkaus and Shipman write:

"Templeton also challenged the calibration of the molecular clock used by the mtDNA researchers. Instead of trying to pinpoint a specific date at which the mtDNA in all modern human groups separated evolutionarily, Templeton estimated the 95 percent confidence limits on that time. In other words, he defined a divergence period by picking the most recent likely date and the most ancient likely date, between which there was a period when the divergence actually occurred, with 95 percent certainty. Basing his work on conservative assumptions, Templeton showed that the mtDNA divergence lay not in the relatively narrow band of time between 166,000 and 249,000 years ago, as had previously been estimated, but in a broad swath sometime between 191,000 and 772,000 years ago. This time interval embraces the period in which Homo erectus was spreading out of Africa and across Eurasia--meaning that the divergence in mtDNA might well have occurred long before the appearance of modern humans." (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1993, p. 394-396)

This can be calculated easily. If modern humans have a divergence of 24 sequence differences, and Neanderthals have a divergence from modern humans of 27 sequence differences, then at the least, modern humans should have split apart from each other only 24/27ths of the time of the Neanderthal split. So if the Neandertal split 600,000 years ago, the rest of humanity should have split from themselves at 533,000 years ago. This is not a lot of difference. Templeton lists a variety of divergence times for Eve ranging from 280,000 to 844,000 years for the length of time it took for the observed variation in modern human mtDNA to arise. (Templeton, 1993, p. 59).

Finally, since the ability to reproduce fertile offspring is determined by nuclear DNA, not mtDNA, these differences shed no light on whether or not we are different species."

References:

Krings, Matthias, et al, 1997. "Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell, 90:19-30.

Lindahl, Tomas, 1997. "Facts and Artifacts of Ancient DNA," Cell, 90:1-3.

Templeton, Alan R. 1995 "The 'Eve" Hypothesis: A Genetic Critique and Reanalysis," American Anthropologist 95(1): 51-72. p. 58

Trinkaus, Erik and Pat Shipman, 1993. The Neandertals, (New York: Alfred Knopf).

Seeing that interbreeding within humans is fairly uncommon even in a modern society we live in today' date=' with globalization, travel and immigration etc, I think, using modern day logic, that it is unlikely they mated. However their social development may be very minimal back then and probably wouldnt recognize things as class/status/weath/race/etc that we see today and plus the random possibilities, it may be possible that some mated. Since no fact is here to backup the claims, its all just philosophy.

 

I got a question for you. Would you feel more proud as a person of 'caucasian' heritage to know that you may have some neanderthal genes in you or would you feel ashamed?? Do you think having their genes is a superior quality?

 

Also what makes you think having bigger noses and blue eyes with blond hair is a favorable trait in colder climates? Can you suggest the mechanism through which this is beneficial such that it provides them selective advantages in terms of evolution?[/quote']

 

 

You are full of assumptions and implications, which kind is kind of depressing as you seem to be trying to make me out to be a white supremacist.

 

I think the opposite of what you do. I think first of all, when early humans entered Europe, they found the neanderthals, and if we look at people today using your logic, they would have mated. Why? Well people have sex with goats, trees, and even leather boots. Why not a new type of hominid ? You speak of interracial mating as being rare, but in all honesty at least in this country (the USA), its actually quite common. Perhaps you are generalizing and thinking of a black and white couple. Interracial dating covers a much larger spectrum than what I am assuming you are meaning. I personally am a result of a white and spanish couple, which I consider a result of interracial mating. Not only that, but scientist see evidence that neanderthals and sapiens lived side by side for 6000-10000 years. Clearly enough time for some nookie to have occured, along with plenty of warfare and competition. We are creatures of love and war.

 

Your second assumption is that I am caucasion. Which is only partly true. I am also half spanish, Cuban to be precise. And superior in what sense? I am merely fascinated at the fact that another hominid not of late african descent could have contributed part of my genetic legacy. You sir, are providing the racial undertones to the whole discussion. And to answer part of your question, Yes, I would be proud to have these genes if I did but only for the reason of my fascination, not because I would feel superior in any way.

 

And lastly, I don't recall exactly what benefit lighter hair and eye color provide to a cold adapted species. If anything it might just be a side effect and not a beneficial adaptation, but skin color is crucial for a certain process incured with sunlight. Im sure any resident biologists could clear up these issues for you. For your information, blue eyes and blonde hair is not the most extreme cold adaptation, green eyes and orange hair is. Also, a large nose and nasal cavity would allow air to be heated more before entering the lungs. Other cold adapted features were a shorter height and a wider build.

 

I hope that clears up your assumptions and removes the implications I am a Nazi.

 

I apologize if my debate style is a bit aggressive, I have always been the type to lean on the sword and not the pen.

 

Oh and one last thing for the record... I prefer a nice thick black woman over a petite fair haired white lady any day of the week. Just my preference.

hmm... couldn;t find anything on snopes..

http://www.snopes.com/crime/fraud/nigeria.asp

That's the original scam from years ago. You can see how it mutated like a virus to continue infecting idiotic minds.

Neanderthal, at least many of the bones found were Africans. People with wide noses have wide nasal cavities which is a common feature among Africans (as Peon mentioned but thought it wasn't an African feature). Also, many of the bones are curved in Neanderthal man, why, vitamin D deficiency causing rickets. The samething happened to Africans living in England. This is actually very contradictory to the discussion and also the overall assumption. I don't think anyone wants to get outside of the compartmentalized way of thinking.

Sorry to be so rude and blunt, but do some research before posting that parroted waste of text.

First off, Neanderthal bones were not found in Africa, they were found in the middle east and Europe. Secondly, the nasal cavity of neanderthals would be considerably larger than any african today or ever, due to the adaptation for the cold, allowing more air to be heated in the cavity before entering the lungs, the opposite is true of modern africans. Thirdly, what bones are you speaking of? None are "curved" they are the shape they are supposed to be. Vitamin D deficiency? What are you saying? That africans cant live in cold climates? What about whites who wish to live in the tropics? And I dont even understand your last two sentences, but than again i'm not too bright.

If I may point you in the direction of this article, you may enlighten yourself:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html

Learn and enjoy, then comment.

I just got this in my Myspace.com profile I made yesterday ( I was bored ). Who in in the planet earth would fall for this? Is this some sort of sick joke? I cant believe the nigerian money scam has mutated into this garbage...

----------------- Original Message -----------------

From: becky

Date: Mar 15, 2006 8:35 PM

Hello,My Real name is becky micheal Iam into computer engineeering Iam 26 years Old i leave in new jersey but i was born in mexico I contacting you and showing some intrest in you.Cos when i went through ur profile i really liked it and found both of us %99 compatible,the only %1 missing is that right now am not home,am stucked up in africa and i need help to get back home.if you can give me a try and help me back home am sure we can makes something work outa this. . I am a single woman looking for a caring and loving man to spend time with. I am a very passionate and loving person whos looking for the same. I like watching movies and going to dinner and I am open to any suggestions. I am also very open and honest so if you have any questions just ask Someone whos outgoing about everything and anything. Someone whos caring, loving, and loves to be touched in every way. Someone who likes to go out but I am also very open and honest so if you have any questions just ask Someone whos outgoing about everything and anything. Someone whos caring, loving, and loves to be touched in every way. Someone who likes to go out but at the same time stay in for a quiet evening. Someone who likes to pamper and also be pampered.thats will help me out from the problem i am into.....?

i really dont wanna tell anyone about this cuz it's a shameful thing

for me to say out but i will tell u briefly.................

i lost my mum 6 months ago and dad is from africa and mum is america, i was born in mexico i school in nj, ever since when mum died i was so loanly, So i decided to go and look for dad in africa.

but unfortunately for me i couldent find him so i lodged in a hotel here in africa so all the money i had with me was used for the hotel bills , the hotel manager seized my passport and my travelling document that until i pay up the bills they will give my document back to me and i will return to the state i will be very greatful if u can help me out.

Hello babe

u really have to help me out as soon as possible ok the hotel manager has siezed all my documents including my return ticket back to the states he says that untill i pay the bills he will give them back to me babe i promise to be very honest to you i will also like you to pick me up at the airport ok cus i will like to stay with you for a while if only i will be welcomed by you and your people u just tell me the nearest airport to you... i reall feel sad here the hotel manager is hurting me here to pay him his money hun i own him $450.. he told me that when i pay him his money i will get back my document back .. hun please help me out of here..if u wana help me to pay the hotel bills this is the details

IF YOU WANT TO SEND THE MONEY ,YOU SEND THE MONEY THROUGH WESTERN UNION MONEY TRANSFER.................OK

IF U WANT TO SEND THE MONEY SEND IT TO THIS NAME THIS NAME IS FOR THE CASHIER OF THE HOTEL AND HE IS THE ONE TO COLLECT THE MONEY OUT FROM THE BANK .....

SENDERS NAME........?

RECEIVERS NAME....

FIRST NAME........TEMPLER

LAST NAME........EBHOTEMHEN

COUNTRY...........NIGERIA

STATE.............LAGOS

ZIP CODE..........23401

TEXT QUESTION....:WHAT IS THE COLOUR ?

ANSWER............:BLUE

I WANT YOU TO SEND THE CONTROL NUMBER TO MY MAILBOX OK I WILL BE WAITING FOR IT OK............THANKS MAY GOD HELP YOU TOO

my yahoo chat id...becky_colo

Product: Stupid shock muscle builders.

Sad part: I have heard people say these things work... yea, thats why all the professional bodybuilders and even the amatuer competiters use them right? Not. I used to be in the amatuer circuit and everyone knows these are bogus. What a sham.

Here is an example of this garbage: http://www.buyamag.com/ems_tens_stimulation.htm

oMg teh Spam!!1

A choice between someone who thinks primarily about their looks and someone who looks primarily to think is no choice at all.

Some are more superficial in wants than you would believe...

omfg! SWHING! If this works like im hoping, it will cure one of the deadliest problems plaguing modern society; McDonalds!

the peon' date=' in response to your response to my first post:

 

i did read your entire post, including the part where you said "Of course im generalizing, cause a model could be a nerd, etc. Guess this is an "im bored" poll type thing." i, at that moment, was just annoyed by the stereotype and was questioning its validity even though in doing so i digressed from the original topic. my apologies.[/quote']

 

 

NP and accepted. I too dislike stereotypes but the ones I presented were pretty vague.. Either way I apologize to any ner... erm.. people who feel offended by my making it seem that nerds are not sexy. Which is what the opposite of this poll shows, that nerds are indeed sexy beasts!

Nerds are in the lead! Go nerds!