Jump to content
The Peon

The legacy of Neanderthal genes in the Sapien gene pool.

Recommended Posts

as regards the legacy of N-genes in caucasoids i will keep an open-and-infantile mind.

 

don't all hypotheses have holes in them?

 

i am' date=' like you, in two minds about the mitochondrial data. i think your criticism of how this data is interpreted is valid. it is considerably easier to isolate sufficient amounts of intact mitochondrial DNA for sequence analysis compared to genomic DNA, this practical point biases the data - nevermind the interpretation of the data. likewise, the considerable paucity of data and difficulty, more ethical than technical, of performing hybridization expts in mammals also creates a bias.

 

can anyone think of any expts which would overwhelmingly demonstrate the legacy of N-genes in caucasoids? the reason i ask this question is that i am most curious about whether it is in our ability as scientists to find an answer.

one day someone may recreate germ cells from N-man and N-woman and see if they can fertilise or be fertilised. however even if this was done, it wouldn't be the final experiment because there are a range of immunological factors that determine fertility [i']in vivo[/i] and also they wouldn't measure the survival fitness of the offspring. there are more obvious experiments i could think of, but these would be flawed too.

 

I am excited with new genetic techniques that are coming along. I am sure they can aid in the discovery of the genes I believe to exist in the caucasoid gene pool.

 

can anyone think of any expts which would overwhelmingly demonstrate the legacy of N-genes in caucasoids?

 

I believe all the physical evidence before us is overwhelming in my eyes. As you mentioned, which I took as an insult before thinking it over, we need to keep an infantile mind in some degrees. Often major scientific discoveries were made by people who have untainted open minds about new scientific ideas. I am trying to deduce my hypothesis (and the hypothesis of others) based on raw physical evidence. Although its a semi-flawed way to create an assumption, I think the evidence is pretty logical to a large degree. As mentioned before, assuming that the out of Africa theory is correct, I find it perticularly odd that such a young race as caucasoids are (30,000-40,000 years old) have adapted so well to there cold enviroment compared to the mongoloids (60,000-possibly 120,000 year old) who have been in a cold enviroment for a much longer period of time.

 

In fact, I dare say that other than superficial differences like shape of eyes, mongoloids have only adapted the white skin for a colder environment. Mongoloids still have dark hair and eyes, broad negroid noses, and a slender frame. This is very consistent with there Negroid ancestors. Caucasoids exhibit strikingly cold adapted features, the extreme case being of course the ginger gene, which produces orange hair, green eyes and freckly skin. Thus it is my assumption by deductive logic that Caucasoids inherited a genetic legacy from Neanderthals, thus giving them a "boost" in cold adaptation over there mongoloid and negroid ancestors.

 

But in the end of course, whats overwhelming evidence to one (me), could be a brush off evidence to another (Milken perhaps?). So evidence itself is all subjectional. One thing is certain, with time we will certainly know the true answer, that I am personally certain of.

 

 

So they remained side by side for 6000-10000 years and remained two completely distinct types of homonid for all this time dispite being able to interbreed?

 

Well the debate is if it were possible to interbreed. With current genetic techniques we cannot tell if a hybrid could be produced, at least a fertile one. But it is my reasoning as presented above that it was highly possible, almost a certainty that a few hybrids were produced who then were able to pass on some of the Neanderthal genetic legacy into the local gene pool which then seeped into the greater Caucasoid gene pool over time.

 

Edit: I just thought of one more thing... this of course means nothing unless you want it to though. Neanderthals reigned from 200,000 to 30,000 years ago. Homo Sapien left Africa roughly 160,000 years ago. Sapien arrived in Europe around 40,000 years ago. Sapiens and Neanderthals branched off from a common ancestor roughly 200-250,000 years ago. Lets do the math. Neanderthals had no contact with there direct sapien cousins for about 150,000 years estimated. On that same note, Negroid Sapiens have not had contact with there descendants from most other gene pools for roughly that same amount of time, and in many degrees if you look at pure blooded Africans and pure blooded Native Americans for instance, you see the same amount of time has passed between potential sexual contact as has passed between sapiens and neanderthals. But oddly enough, a Negroid from Africa can reproduce perfectly healthy and fertile offspring with a Native American with just as much success as a Negroid with a Negroid, or a Native American with another Native American.

 

In conclusion, Negroids have been out of sexual contact with other Sapien gene pools just as long as Neanderthals were out of contact with there African cousins. Yet we make the assumption that Neaderthals and Sapiens could not have interbred even though Negroids can produce viable offspring with any of there descendents to this day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe there will be evidence in the gene pool, but this evidence would only be valid with the analysis of genetic material from fossils. if N-genes are found in present day caucasoid genetic material there will always be the counter-argument of horizontal/lateral gene transfer. i won't bring up the ginger gene in this context, the mutations only occur in single codons, instead i will just point out that ginger is not limited too caucasoids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe there will be evidence in the gene pool, but this evidence would only be valid with the analysis of genetic material from fossils. if N-genes are found in present day caucasoid genetic material there will always be the counter-argument of horizontal/lateral gene transfer. i won't bring up the ginger gene in this context, the mutations only occur in single codons, instead i will just point out that ginger is not limited too caucasoids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair

 

Most interesting. Although I do not think the examples cited are ginger gene inheritants. Having reddish hair is different than the full blown orange hair, green eyes and freckly face which I doubt any of the regions spoken of exhibit. Not to mention, Neanderthals ranged far into the middle east as well, so it would be understandable to see some of the genetic influence in these areas as well. But again, I am no geneticist. I merely have a basic understanding of how genes work and of the ginger gene itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am trying to deduce my hypothesis (and the hypothesis of others) based on raw physical evidence. Although its a semi-flawed way to create an assumption, I think the evidence is pretty logical to a large degree. As mentioned before, assuming that the out of Africa theory is correct, I find it perticularly odd that such a young race as caucasoids are (30,000-40,000 years old) have adapted so well to there cold enviroment compared to the mongoloids (60,000-possibly 120,000 year old) who have been in a cold enviroment for a much longer period of time.

 

So one group of people adapted physically 2-4 times faster than another. It's only odd because the assumption is that they're a cacuasion(pale skinned) group of people. The times frames are very small for this much evolution to take place.

 

In fact' date=' I dare say that other than superficial differences like shape of eyes, mongoloids have only adapted the white skin for a colder environment.[/quote']

 

I'm not quite sure exactly what group you're referring too. But Mongoloids are between are a little lighter than Arabs and significantly darker than Asians. It also depends on what time frame you're referring too.

 

Mongoloids still have dark hair and eyes' date=' broad negroid noses, and a slender frame. This is very consistent with there Negroid ancestors. Caucasoids exhibit strikingly cold adapted features, the extreme case being of course the ginger gene, which produces orange hair, green eyes and freckly skin. Thus it is my assumption by deductive logic that Caucasoids inherited a genetic legacy from Neanderthals, thus giving them a "boost" in cold adaptation over there mongoloid and negroid ancestors. [/quote']

 

It's possible they got something from them who knows. Here above we have a solid description of typical Negroid features, minus a few others. The the obvious broad nose of Africans is mentioned.

The Standford scientist Peon quoted admitted they had wide nasal cavities but guessed it was an adaptation to cold weather. I found a source showing that modern caucasions have a narrow nasal cavity and obviously usually have narrow noses. N-Man came from Africa and quite conceivable not caucasion since not known caucasion group has had broad noses like N-man.

Especially in light of N-Man being as far south as Middle East. A slight history background can assert the closeness between Arab and African descent.

 

But in the end of course, whats overwhelming evidence to one (me), could be a brush off evidence to another (Milken perhaps?). So evidence itself is all subjectional. One thing is certain, with time we will certainly know the true answer, that I am personally certain of.

 

Unless I missed something the main evidence I remember for asserting Caucasion was location and it still doesn't make sense in light of the short time they were there and admittedly African.

 

But oddly enough' date=' a Negroid from Africa can reproduce perfectly healthy and fertile offspring with a Native American with just as much success as a Negroid with a Negroid, or a Native American with another Native American. [/quote']

 

Odd? Only if we're not all the same race, human.

 

In conclusion' date=' Negroids have been out of sexual contact with other Sapien gene pools just as long as Neanderthals were out of contact with there African cousins. Yet we make the assumption that Neaderthals and Sapiens could not have interbred even though Negroids can produce viable offspring with any of there descendents to this day.[/quote']

 

I do not really have an opinion here. I think it was possible if they wanted to, but sexual selection could have been a factor like it is today with people usually "mating", "doing it", or "getting busy" with people of the similar ethnicity. If they interacted, certainly someone would have hooked up atleast once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i looked up a relevant paper on M1CR polymorphism, ie the red gene:

http://http:www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=10733465

this paper has been used by some as evidence of N-C hybrids.

 

the paper will take me another reading or two, but on first browsing it doesn't really point in favour of any hypothesis. in fact it plays down its results and conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bla bla bla same banter over and over...

 

Good bye Milken. Your points are allready noted and I dont think anyone cares. This is a science forum. You lost your credibility in any scientific debate in my opinion when you claimed Neanderthals were Sapiens with rickets. Try posting in Answers In Genesis forums. They might care about some pastors opinion from a predarwin era.

 

i looked up a relevant paper on M1CR polymorphism' date=' ie the red gene:

http://http:www.pubmedcentral.gov/ar...medid=10733465

this paper has been used by some as evidence of N-C hybrids.

 

the paper will take me another reading or two, but on first browsing it doesn't really point in favour of any hypothesis. in fact it plays down its results and conclusions.[/quote']

 

Link appears dead. Could you verify it and repost? Would like to read it. I actually dont recall where I read about the ginger gene itself, I merely recall the information regarding it. I do remember though that it was on a universitys website. I wish I could find the original article I read as it was a great piece of work written in a nuetral way towards the whole Neanderthal hybrid issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harding RM, Healy E, Ray AJ, Ellis NS, Flanagan N, Todd C, Dixon C,

Sajantila A, Jackson IJ, Birch-Machin MA, Rees JL.

Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R.

Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Apr;66(4):1351-61. Epub 2000 Mar 24.

PMID: 10733465

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=10733465

or

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v66n4/991391/991391.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harding RM' date=' Healy E, Ray AJ, Ellis NS, Flanagan N, Todd C, Dixon C,

Sajantila A, Jackson IJ, Birch-Machin MA, Rees JL.

Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R.

Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Apr;66(4):1351-61. Epub 2000 Mar 24.

PMID: [b']10733465[/b]

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=10733465

or

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v66n4/991391/991391.html

 

 

Nice! Thank you for posting that information. Although I dont understand some parts of it. Are you sure the gene in question, MC1R is referring to the "ginger gene?" Just want to be sure..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep Peon. one of the authors Ian Jackson, a scot i presume, possibly a ginger haired one too, is big in the field of M1CR, his homepage is

http://www.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Research/Jackson/Molecular_dissection.html

this page should help you understand how M1CR functions.

 

i am not sure which academics have taken the above paper and used it for evidence of N-C hybrids...but it appears in a number of non-academics internet sites have, including:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/000309.html

http://p221.ezboard.com/fbalkanhistoryfrm19.showMessage?topicID=3.topic

 

i am wondering who has reinterpreted this data and turned it into evidence for N-C hybrids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good bye Milken. Your points are allready noted and I dont think anyone cares. This is a science forum. You lost your credibility in any scientific debate in my opinion when you claimed Neanderthals were Sapiens with rickets. Try posting in Answers In Genesis forums. They might care about some pastors opinion from a predarwin era.

 

Hello Peon and others. I did not know he was a pastor' date=' but he was also world famous in his trade. It's undeniable that originally N-Man was thought not to be human, why, the early bones were obviously deformed, mostly children. Later we found plenty of normal N-Man bodies and skulls, unlike the deformed conehead you showed earlier. [b']Once again, you've posted a lie. The claims is not all N-man were diseased, please read before responding.[/b]

 

In addition to the other evidence, I'll add mattbimbo's article from FuturePunit to the list. It states the red hair gene only showed up 20,000 years ago. Peon's inital post states N-man and modern man interatcted around 28,000-30,000 years ago. The red-hair gene is nearly always Caucasion and fits into his suggested birth of modern caucasions much more logically than N-Man.

 

 

Why N-Man was most likely African. . .

 

1) N-man's Nasal cavity is the exact opposite of modern Caucasion/European. It fits an African (showed in link earlier, modern science confirms this.)

 

2) No modern European group has a wide nasal cavity.

 

**Note: If the Standford guy is correct it means two opposite adaptions have the same affect. N-Man wide nasal cavity adapted for cold, modern caucasion narrow nasal cavity, adapted for cold, nonsense, it really is.

 

2) N-Man's Ancestors were Africans (modern science believes this)

 

3) Rickets/Pagets/Osteoperosis or whatever, Some N-Man clearly had a vit D or bone issue. The early finds of children were deformed. Later finds looked perfectly healthy. ("Nature"<--evolution magazine, confirms this point)

 

Note*** The rickets diagnosis may be wrong, but it's clear they had bone problems. So much, early on they were not labeled human.

 

4) They were likely carnivours (not sure how widespread this is). Meat eaters are a lot less likely to get vitamin D from the diet, leaving the sun as the other option. (everyone knows eating meat doesn't give you vitamin D)

 

5) Africans living in a cold environment are at risk of VitaminD/bone issues if it's not specifically part of the diet. This has been documented in recent history with Africans in England. (modern medical science proves this)

 

5) Red hair gene showed up 20,000 years ago, if N-Man had adpated as much as purported the redhair gene should be older (FuturePundit proves this)

 

6) The rare recessive red hair gene always(to my knowledge) shows up in Europeans. (genetics, an obvious observation confirms this)

 

7) The arrival of the red hair gene(20,000) fits perfectly with the time frame (given by Peon) of modern Caucasion/Europeans being 30,000-40,000) years old. (well, duh!)

 

Conclusion: I think N-man were Africans, or dark skinned. This is not based on any Creationist, ID, or religious beliefs, just science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am still looking for academics who consider polymorphisms of the m1cr gene as evidence of Neanderthal-Caucasoid interbreeding. so far no success, however i did find a recent article published in last Feb's nature. from radiocarbon dating, the authors estimate that the spread of homo sapiens which much greater, and that the overlap with Neanderthals was less, than previous reckoning.

 

from the article: The same chronological pattern points to a substantially shorter period of chronological and demographic overlap between the earliest intrusive populations of anatomically and behaviourally modern humans and the last survivors of the preceding Neanderthal populations within the different regions of Europe. Although this has often been estimated in the region of approximately 10,000 yr within Europe as a whole, we can now see from the new calibrated chronology that this must be shortened to at most about 6,000 yr (at least in the more central and northern parts of Europe), with periods of overlap within the individual regions of Europe (such as western France) of perhaps only 1,000–2,000 yr. Evidently the native Neanderthal populations of Europe succumbed much more rapidly to competition from the expanding biologically and behaviourally modern populations than previous estimates have generally assumed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in another article by the same author as above, there is a dicussion of the rapid demise of Neanderthals in southern Africa.

 

i will also add this

from the article: the possibility of some small degree of interbreeding between the two populations cannot be excluded on the basis of either the current anatomical or DNA evidence[1, 12] and would again seem plausible in anthropological and demographic terms.

 

[1] Stringer, C. Modern human origins: progress and prospects. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 357, 563?579 (2002)

[12] Conard, N., Grootes, P. M. & Smith, F. H. Unexpectedly recent dates for human remains from Vogelherd. Nature 430, 198?201 (2004)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nice references. Would you mind if I post and quote some of this material to put in my first post of this thread for convenient access by people who are reading the thread for the first time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice references. Would you mind if I post and quote some of this material to put in my first post of this thread for convenient access by people who are reading the thread for the first time?

 

hi Peon, not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appologize for bringing back a topic that apparently died more than a month ago. As you can see from the number of posts I've contributed to the forum, I am new here.

 

At any rate, I ran across this website while researching the claim that Neandertals had 48 chromosomes. (I've yet to find any evidence supporting that claim, by the way.)

 

Regarding hybridization...

 

It would be virtually impossible to cross-breed a modern homo sapiens with a modern chimpanzee, despite the fact that we share 97% of our DNA and 20 of our 23 haploid chromosomes are nearly identicle to those of chimpanzees. Why? Homo sapiens have 23 chromosomes, chimpanzees have 24. It is widely believed that the chimpanzee chromosomes 11 and 13 make up human chromosome 2, thus reducing the number of chromosomes in humans from 24 to 23 (haploid) / 48 to 46 (diploid).

 

I've seen it mentioned on other forums that it should be possible to cross-breed human beings and chimpanzees and that the result would be a hybrid with 47 chromosomes rather than 48.

 

Not likely, and here's why:

 

Monosomies are almost always fatal. The only exception I have seen is the deletion of an "X" chromosome in females with Turner's Syndrome. All other monosomies are lethal. To have 47 chromosomes in a human-chimpanzee hybrid, the 47th chromosome would be unpaired and thus dysfunctional, more than likely incompatible with life beyond the first few weeks following conception---providing conception and implantation were to occur.

 

Besides the possibility of the "extra" or 47th chromosome resulting in a monosomy, the other possibility is of a full trisomy, which are also potentially fatal. In human-human fertilization, the only trisomies which have proven to be compatible with life whatsoever beyond the second trimester in-utero are trisomies 13, 18 and 21, with 21 being the only compatible with life beyond the first few years. Throwing chimpanzee chromosomes in the mix makes it more unlikely that such trisomies would be compatible with life.

 

The only other possibility is, in fact, the centric fusing of chimpanzee chromosomes 11 and 13 and the subsequent pairing with human chromosome 2. And I dont know that chimp chromosomes 11 and 13 have ever fused in the wild and resulted in a surviving offspring, though this clearly would have had to have happened among our hominid ancestors when the switch from 48 to 46 chromosomes occurred. (Of course we must also keep in mind that chimpanzees are NOT our ancestors, but rather cousins who evolved parallel with us from a common ancestor some 5-7 million years ago.)

 

How does this relate to the question of Neandertal - homo sapiens hybridization? It has been theorized that Neandertals may have had 48 chromosomes. If that were the case, it would have been nearly, if not flat-out impossible for hybridization to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think it might be possible that the human species carries enough genetic material that a group of them could adapt into a Neanderthal form under favourable conditions without having to go through any genetic mutations. How plastic of a species are we? How many old forms, and even new forms, are we able to take that we simply are not aware of because conditions are not currently favourable for humans to exist in that form?

 

What is evolution vs adaptation or re-adaptation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a scientist just a born people watcher. I am a college grad who enjoy reading and talking with scholars. I find it very interesting that the Caucasoid people are the one true mulatto race. The world is millions of years old, yet in 700 years the Caucasoid race has managed to significantly compromise the environment and destroy this world. We know from anthropologist that the Caucasoid race was the last race to leave hunting and gathering for horticulture.

 

. The Neanderthal was a humanoid of another race--truly. Every scientist knows this. Yet there are right wing people afraid of the research that wants to pretty it up and even sell this ideal to the mainstream through humor in ads and commercials. There are human beings and then there are people of other origins. Europeans fled Europe that was diseased infested, famine struck, and a true slaughter house. They sailed off what many at the time believed was a square with four corners with sea monsters and all, fearing wives tales and superstition in search of life. In history books their still is the nonsense of savages on other lands. Yet the only people who behaved savagely were this human-humanoid, who claimed to not know that the human beings they slaughtered and raped and pillaged were humans. It is all ludicrous, seeing that all of the world population welcomed them on their land and tried to help them in human ways. There is no other explanation for the Caucasoid lack of humanity other than he lacked humanity. He could literally roast a person while he ate his lunch. He fed people to lions, he created torture chambers and enjoy torturing his neighbor in the name of his God. He made soap and furniture out of peoples body parts. These are not human experiences. He blindly consume all of the worlds resources, put a ridiculous value on gold and trinkets and continue consuming oil even as it destroys the environment. How long has the world been around? How long has it been since the European been in rule? Look at the world. The Caucasoid is not the brightest, not the strongest, not the most creative, but is the most cunning and the most destructive, that the world has ever known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The world is millions of years old, yet in 700 years the Caucasoid race has managed to significantly compromise the environment and destroy this world. We know from anthropologist that the Caucasoid race was the last race to leave hunting and gathering for horticulture.

 

Within anthropology, it is known that there is no such thing as the 3 "races".

 

The Neanderthal was a humanoid of another race--truly.

 

Neandertals were another species in the genus Homo. First there was Homo erectus. Homo erectus was the common ancestor for H. neandertals, H. sapiens, H. florensienis, and perhaps more.

 

There are human beings and then there are people of other origins. Europeans fled Europe ... In history books their still is the nonsense of savages on other lands. Yet the only people who behaved savagely were this human-humanoid, who claimed to not know that the human beings they slaughtered and raped and pillaged were humans. It is all ludicrous, seeing that all of the world population welcomed them on their land and tried to help them in human ways. There is no other explanation for the Caucasoid lack of humanity other than he lacked humanity.

 

You are also guilty of "cleaning up" history. Europeans are members of H. sapiens. So are all the other people they encountered. The definitive biological proof is that Europeans interbred with all these peoples and had fully fertile offspring with them. Same species. All "human beings" as in H. sapiens.

 

Savagery was not unique to Europeans. Amerindians -- especially in the eastern US, routinely tortured captives. The "Mongoloids" under Timur the Lame committed atrocities even worse than any the Europeans did, depopulating Persia as just one. The savage Japanese treatment of Koreans is legendary.

 

Now, when you say "he" meaning Europeans, you don't mean ALL Europeans. There were also Europeans who helped DEFEND the native peoples during colonization. It is not fair to take the most extreme behaviors of a few -- "soap and furniture out of peoples body parts" --and say an entire population did so.

 

The Caucasoid is not the brightest, not the strongest, not the most creative, but is the most cunning and the most destructive, that the world has ever known.

 

Not even that. Ghenghis Khan and Timur the Lame, leading Mongol hordes, were much more destructive. Europeans in the modern era have had the most advanced technology. That might indicate creativity, or not.

 

As far as anyone can tell, features such as intelligence, strength, creativity, and cunning are not statistically different between human populations. Each population represents a bell-shaped curve that is indistinguishable from the bell shaped curves of all the other populations. About the most that can be said are that the Masai are the tallest humans and the pygmies the shortest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:eyebrow: Only afterr I posted my comments for discussion, I noticed that it had been a really long time since the last post from others, so I wasn’t in a hurry to check for a response. I was just forwarding this information to a friend, and decided to see. I am glad to hear your comments.

I don’t believe there are 3 races and wasn’t acknowledging that 3 races exist. There is one human race made of up of homo sapiens and another race of people that arrived on the scene that were homo neadertal . The Negroid and the Mongloid both truly homosapiens and being of the same race. The Homo Neandertal was of another race. Not Homo sapien and not a human being. The term human being derived from the fact that the being had a hue, not white skin, like most mammals walking on four legs. Human beings ancestors began all full Negroid. Leaving Africa, and adapting to climate, environment and vegetation, the Negroid or Asiatic black man mutated over time to look like the Mongloid with lighter skin and sometimes-straight hair. The African man in Europe encourted other races of people, Neanderthal, Florinsiens, and what I believe to be many others. I am sure he put up a fight, but he still bred at some point with this other. This is how his humanity was compromised. This is why his skin is pale. After all, the Mongloid had been on the scene a lot longer that he had, in many times cold environments, yet still maintaine similar facial featurs to the Negroid, but long straight hair that would benefit him in the cold and a light brown skin caused from a less intense heat from the son on the earth. When this Mongloid or Human Being encourtered other people, he mated with them. These others were not of the human race. There are studies showing that the homo neandertal was the ancestor of the human race. Yet recent finding through DNA testing is finding this Caucasoids to possess MT dna with the Neanderthal in his gene pool—but not in the rest of the human race, sapien gene pool.

This is how the Caucasoid took on his features, hair and eye color. This would make him made up of 2 races. Science has published many findings that indicate that the Neanderthal and humans were physically unable to produce an off spring that would be fertile. The universe is wondrous and somehow this Neandertal gene managed it’s way into only the Caucasoid group. Having a make up of 2 different races both compromise and debase Homo sapiens gene pool. This white skin is the cause for much stratification throughout the world. I will go ahead and repeat myself, when I say that no human being has caused more destruction to the environment on planet earth. Much of the technology came with it poisons to toxify the earth and ruin the environment for all the human beings. I say the Caucasoid is of another race, because of his Neanderthal blood. He is partly human with traits of Neanderthal in his genes. My question is how much differently would having this gene affects the Caucasoid. I am looking for answers. How is it that Caucasoid felt it was a reasonable thing to do roast men over fire for kicks? How were Caucasoids able to mercilessly slaughter the Sioux people making purses out of the natives breast and vaginas? There is something it seems to suggest a missing conscience. Having Neanderthal gene most likely caused a change in human value systems, such as love, compassion and understanding for the Caucasoid. I do believe the Negroid that migrating to Europe was faced with some real serious competitors of other races. I think the struggle for survival was something very fierce, I think when defeated the others and emerged as one race it was a new race or a mixed race that changed more than just his appearance.

 

No I don’t mean all Europeans, however, the propaganda of his history, is to boast about the great things that took place, as well as the great people in his history from Europe. Many people take great pride in being Arian. How could anyone take pride in a group that made soap out of people? Either history must be told with the truth and people acknowledge it or people can glorify all the atrocities by embracing these individuals that were monsters and not human. There is nothing to boast about in European History, not given the true facts—avoiding propaganda. Let’s not forget that Europeans came to the US, slaughtering animals that they had no plan on eating in massive quantities. The greed and hording continue to exist today. Human beings are starving all over the world and this Caucasoid is throwing away food. Crops in foreign lands are often used to feed Cacasoids while others go without food in their own land. These are all problems for human beings. You would need to weigh each technology with the cause of harm to the environment before determining if it advanced the human race or just compromised our ability to continue to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why N-Man was most likely African. . .

 

1) N-man's Nasal cavity is the exact opposite of modern Caucasion/European. It fits an African (showed in link earlier, modern science confirms this.)

 

2) No modern European group has a wide nasal cavity.

 

**Note: If the Standford guy is correct it means two opposite adaptions have the same affect. N-Man wide nasal cavity adapted for cold, modern caucasion narrow nasal cavity, adapted for cold, nonsense, it really is.

 

The transitional fossils from H. erectus to H. neandertals ALL occur in Europe! This contradicts any other circumstantial evidence you have of African origin of H. neandertals. SOME of the transitional fossils are:

 

Erectus to neandertalis:

Stenheim and Swanscombe, 250 Kya: called H. heidelbergensis but have characteristics of both erectus and neandertalis. Large brows and small cranium ( ~1200cc) but otherwise looks like neandertalis

Petroloma skull (complete): brow ridges and low forehead like erectus but not quite as primitive but not as derived as sapiens or neandertalis. Back of head resembles sapiens. 250 Kya

Ehrendorf in Germany and Saccopestore in Italy: mixture erectus and early neandertals, classed as archaic H. sapiens or H. heidelbergensis.

 

3) Rickets/Pagets/Osteoperosis or whatever, Some N-Man clearly had a vit D or bone issue. The early finds of children were deformed. Later finds looked perfectly healthy. ("Nature"<--evolution magazine, confirms this point)

 

Please cite the specific articles. Have you ever read Nature? It is not an "evolution magazine" but rather a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering all disciplines of science.

 

4) They were likely carnivours (not sure how widespread this is). Meat eaters are a lot less likely to get vitamin D from the diet, leaving the sun as the other option. (everyone knows eating meat doesn't give you vitamin D)

 

Eating liver does. Liver is an excellent source of vitamin D -- because mammals convert Vitamin D (cholecalciferol) to 25 hydroxycholecaliferol in the liver. http://courses.washington.edu/bonephys/opvitD.html#metab

 

5) Africans living in a cold environment are at risk of VitaminD/bone issues if it's not specifically part of the diet. This has been documented in recent history with Africans in England. (modern medical science proves this)

 

This is because vitamin D is not really a "vitamin". Vitamin D is made by the action of UV radiation on cholesterol in the capillaries of the skin. The UV cleaves cholesterol to make cholecalciferol (vitamin D). Skin color evolved because humans get a lot more UV radiation in Africa than in northern latitudes. Therefore lighter skin is an adaptation to ensure that the individual makes enough vitamin D. So, in Africa blacks would get enough sunlight but in the colder climate and higher latitude of England, they don't.

 

Conclusion: I think N-man were Africans, or dark skinned. This is not based on any Creationist, ID, or religious beliefs, just science.

 

Sorry, but the data contradicts the conclusion. Neandertals evolved in Europe and, because of adaptation to getting enough UV light, were probably lighter skinned. They were completely replaced by H. sapiens 30-40,000 years ago.

 

BTW, H. sapiens evolved 150,000 years ago, not 30-40,000.

 

 

This is modified Multiregional Hypothesis. Sorry' date=' but it's wrong. H. sapiens did not arise by interbreeding of different populations of Homo in different parts of the world.

 

The data is clear that H. sapiens and H. neandertal were separate species. If a few Neandertal Romeos (or Juliets) mated with sapies Juliets (or Romeos), they did not have fertile offspring.

 

The Homo Neandertal was of another race. Not Homo sapien and not a human being.

 

Most anthropologists are calling members of ANY species within the genus Homo "human".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More Human-Neandertal Mixing Evidence Uncovered - November 6, 2006?

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061103083616.htm

 

http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/8165.html

 

cheers.

 

Old news. Trinkaus has been harping on those Romanian skeletons for years. Femurs that aren't the "right" length and robust skulls don't change the genetic evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so glad that I've found this site. Before I make a posting I'd like to read the papers on Homo Neanderthal and Homo Sapien which have been mentioned. I am particularly interested in Human Evolution, also ritual in prehistory.

I was due to start a degee course in archaeology this term however, ill health has prevented my attending the university so I hope it's o k for me to use this site to bounce ideas around and hopefully gather information.

I can still log into the uni library from home so any recommendations of reading materials would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.