Jump to content
The Peon

The legacy of Neanderthal genes in the Sapien gene pool.

Recommended Posts

the biblical reference to nephilim/gibborim and the sons of Elohim is obscure

but is probably related to the giants and heroes (including heracles)

of the greek bronze/heroic age preceding the flood of Deucalion

 

 

'Greek Mythology Link' website

 

neanderthals being caucasians would presumably be sons of Japhet (the son of noah)

Edited by granpa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the biblical reference to nephilim/gibborim and the sons of Elohim is obscure

but is probably related to the giants and heroes (including heracles)

of the greek bronze/heroic age preceding the flood of Deucalion

 

 

'Greek Mythology Link' website

 

neanderthals being caucasians would presumably be sons of Japhet (the son of noah)

 

It is interesting to think of these things, if there was any connection it would mean the bible was at least partly written about things that had to have happened about 50,000 years ago instead of 6,000 as most biblical scholars date the bible. The idea that the bible might be telling us things about a time well before written history is interesting but really needs it's own thread in religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are Caucasoids slight hybrids of Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalis? Do the genes of Neanderthals still flourish in certain gene pools? These are shocking and taboo questions that most dont wish to face up to. In this thread, I will present one side of the scientific debate which tries to answer that question.

 

The specific genes that make a Neanderthal a Neanderthal I don't think exist anymore, but the genetic difference between a Neanderthal and the homo sapiens we see today is a difference of only .01%. I guess if you wanted to use that, then you could even say the DNA that flourished in the first organisms on Earth is also flourishing in us.

Edited by steevey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it makes more sense to believe that Neanderthals by many future generations became modern humans, no extinction just changes over time. This would also apply to other creatures that were human like prior to modern humans. I have no evidence but it makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.

I am a new member who has been researching this topic intensely for a week now and casually for years. This is how I came upon this site, this thread about Neanderthal interbreeding with mankind in Europe. Recently, 2010, the neanderthal gnome project concluded that indeed some genetic contribution from Neanderthals (outside of the original split) is likely.

 

http://www.eva.mpg.de/neandertal/

"An international consortium of researchers has sequenced the genome of our closest relative, the Neandertal.

In a paper released in Science on May 7, 2010 the team reports the sequencing of an initial draft of the genome. The sequence was generated from several Neandertal fossils from Croatia, Germany, Spain and Russia using high-throughput sequencing technologies.

 

Results indicate that Neandertals are slightly more closely related to modern humans outside Africa. The team also identified several genomic regions that appear to have played an important role during human evolution."

 

This evidence matches with some (key word - some) of Stan Gooch's ideas. Gooch proposed that Cro Magnon characteristics were dominant but some of the Neanderthal genes did sneak in for that brief period in Europe/Asia 40,000 years ago. Like many of his ideas he took it too far into wildly untrue realms (relating genetics to political affiliation) but the core idea that the two groups did have some significant experience with each other that extended into genetics (the study cited above puts the influence at 1% to 4%) seems to be true. It doesn't seem like much but it does line up with the idea that Neanderthals contributed to the gene-pool for a relatively very short amount of time in Europe/Asia approximately 40,000 years ago.

 

http://www.newscient...ith-humans.html

 

http://www.newscient...ost-humans.html

Edited by SirReal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it makes more sense to believe that Neanderthals by many future generations became modern humans, no extinction just changes over time. This would also apply to other creatures that were human like prior to modern humans. I have no evidence but it makes more sense.

How then do you account for the abundant evidence that both modern humans and Neanderthals existed over the same time periods? It does not matter how much sense you think your version makes if it is not supported by evidence it is practically worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

 

I once heard somebody remark (or, perhaps, quote), "They say that familiarity breeds contempt, but, from my observation, it mostly just breeds".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the course of a 30 minute BBC radio interview with Chris Springer a couple of day ago, it was suggested that during the 1960/70s it was generally thought that humans evolved from Neanderthals. Yet I am fairly sure that when I was growing up in the 1950s the then conventional wisdom was that we were descendants of Cro Magnon man, and had not direct relationship with Neanderthals. Am I misremembering, or was there a subsequent switch of view which went unnoticed by me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the course of a 30 minute BBC radio interview with Chris Springer a couple of day ago, it was suggested that during the 1960/70s it was generally thought that humans evolved from Neanderthals. Yet I am fairly sure that when I was growing up in the 1950s the then conventional wisdom was that we were descendants of Cro Magnon man, and had not direct relationship with Neanderthals. Am I misremembering, or was there a subsequent switch of view which went unnoticed by me?

I cannot produce citations on this off hand, but my recollections very much match your own. In short, Springer was talking rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot use the terms "white" and "spanish" meaning different races. Spanish is exclusively european and their genetic profile is typically european, no less "white" than italians, the french, the irish, etc...You surely meant to say "hispanic", which is still not racially accurate but wich indicates spanish speaking people of any race or mixed genetic background. The term "cuban" , just like the term "american", cannot be used as racial reference since there are cubans as well as americans of only european descent, as well as african, amerindian, etc... or any kind of combination. So, you probably meant to say: " I am the product of a european and a mixed genetic hispanic from Cuba couple..."

 

Up until this unfortunate sentence I was enjoying your explanations.

 

I would like your feed back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Cro Magnum man would have been too keen on breeding with the Neadrathals. We are already biggoted towards people that have almost no genetic differences from us at all. I think when we saw a neandrathal man or woman we killed them if we could. We probably thought it disgusting to think of mating with them and shunned anyone who had a Neanderthal parent. Even still, some genes might have snuck in.

 

 

 

Speak for yourself. Actually, wherever people mix they tend to ... well, mix; including with their genes. In fact, according to the US Census Bureau, in the US the fastest growing demographic group is multi-racial people.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn...p/#.T4LecJmmi8A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I was rather crude back when I started this thread. I apologize for all the logical fallacies I committed ohmy.png

 

Apology accepted, and I believe that goes for more than just myself. The important thing is that one learns, which means going from some level of ignorance to a lesser level ignorance...we are all ignorant of many things; it is not a personal attack merely a fact of life. When one learns an apology is not really required; it is a good day for teachers and students. And, it is one purpose of this forum. We share in the celebration of your learning and others. Thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this thread from the beginning is fascinating, from Humans being totally separate from any other hominid to some interbreeding with neanderthals to now four or more different species interbreeding in the human ancestry. Many arguments were thinly veiled racism and some were more of the eww mate with one of those ugly things and a few were simply based on how humans really act and some based on arguments of chromosome differences that were obviously wrong with examples all around us of such interbreeding among other animals.

 

Great thread, very entertaining...

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.