@NestoriusAlpha The Neanderthal is a valley in Germany where the first skeleton was found, Germans pronounce "th" as "t", and the stress is on the "an"
Anyone can scan on 'Neanderthal DNA 12.7' and learn that Neanderthals were 1/8th "ancestral", which means they were hybrids 15-16ths human, and 1-16th ape. i.e. they shared 2 million more base pairs with chimps. Modern Eurasian humans have none of this steenking NM DNA in the genome.
@Mdebacle A new species of human being who lived alongside our ancestors 30,000 years ago has been discovered by scientists. The cavemen, called Denisovans, was identified from DNA and found they Asians in a specific region of our planet actually carry their genes while they are absent in other humans.
In order for Neanderthals to have been 15-16ths human and 1-16th ape, they were the product of humans commiting bestiality with species X which was 7/8ths human and 1/8th ape. We should conclude species X was Denisovan, though not necessarily the ones whose fossils remain.
The Africans are the only group that DOES NOT HAVE the genes. We, the Caucasians are the closest to Neanderthal. Now my question is WHY would we recreate them? That would be like recreating a meat eating dinosaur , really?
@mikeysdreamgal Only Saharan Africans don't have a trace. Not all Africans. However, all humans still share a common ancestral DNA that neanderthal and humans diverged from was Rhodesiensis, which didn't look too different than humans and neanderthals. So, I am sure that there were many populations who bread together keeping the gene flow until more than one population moved on. I wouldn't be surprised if we find more species that lived along side us, if given time.
"They was a group of "humans" that lived in western Asia and Europe" and the they say "we don't have any of their genes". So, how can they really be "human"?
I read his paper...his extraction method wsa to be honest a work of genius... but also one of those things that could have been done any time in the past 20 years....
I'd hazard a guess Paabo will get another gong! which would mean he's be the only 20th and 21st century laureate.
cute how they made the Neandertals nose thin and long like Svante's, does not really fit with the real look of the neandertals skulls that have been found though, huge broad nasal passage
You don't BELIEVE Facts you Accept Facts. You believe speculations and nonsensical general theories, like that of god etc. Like killer1919yeah said, Evolution is not a theory (in the general sense) But a Scientific Theory now made a Fact. You don't Believe in Evolution, You accept it.
@killer1990Yeah - The terms mean the same thing in both instances. The Theory of Relativity is an explanation to connect the data points. It is an idea. Ditto for the Theory of Evolution. No offense to the physicists but there's probably more empirical hands-on evidence for the Theory of Evolution than there is for the ToR.
@CO2Junkie relativity doesn't have a lot of data in the same way biologists produce mountains and mountains of information....its primarily mathematical... so the entire relativity theory could fit in a file of about 60k along with a written explanation... but evolution would require a compressed file of several terabytes...
Except perhaps for fishers selection equations... if you limited it to that then it'd be small...
Sorry I seen the word physicist there...and no offence taken
@CO2Junkie relativity doesn't have a lot of data in the same way biologists produce mountains and mountains of information....its primarily mathematical... so the entire relativity theory could fit in a file of about 60k along with a written explanation... but evolution would require a compressed file of several terabytes...
Except perhaps for fishers selection equations... if you limited it to that then it'd be small...
Sorry I seen the word physicist there...and no offence taken
how do they know what they are sequencing as the 'neanderthal genome' is actually not just a compromised human dna sequence??
I'm sorry if this question seems petty to some people but I'm new to the world of evolution/creationism and trying to figure out what I think about it so I'm trying to be as skeptical as possible.. I'd really like evolution to be true to be honest but I still have to approach everything skeptically..
If someone could give me some info I'd really appreciate it..
@SHIBBYiPANDA From an archaeologist's point of view this question is answered through the associated artifacts found with skeletal material that conforms to what we think of as "Neanderthal". There is a series of markers.But it is the associated artifacts, ie "tool kits" that identify a neanderthal site. So--they looked different from us and they had a different material culture from contemporary Homo Sapiens Sapiens. As yet the sample is small but thats what it is: an archaeological "culture"
@SHIBBYiPANDA Because they used the mtdna (maternal) which is encapsulated in it's own structure within cells.Mtdna has a lower mutation and deterioration rate than ydna.
The grave/remains were singular,Samples were taken from internal structures and the conditions were totally controled.Idk if the vids are still on youtube but they showed the collection,analization and controls used at the Max Plank Institute.
The fact that these scientists already believe that humans came from chimps, makes me think that the truth won't be found in science, it will just be used to support more of the stupid monkey to man idiocy.
@userwl2850 oops I said chimps, I mean monkeys. The ape line, monkey line. I think that we came from a human line, apes came from an ape line and so on. I don't believe evolution is a smooth transition, I believe it's in discrete jumps, as evidenced by the jump from species to species. All possibilities already exist, it's just that some are triggered to manifest.
@c1zx you,re right, human evolution wasn,t a smooth transition. type,, "human evolution the jaw muscle" it,s one of my favourite discrete jumps,as you say.
@c1zx: Hmmmm, ok. Which line is Neandertal man in? How about H. erectus? Which one does Archeopteryx fit into? Care to theorize how genetics could handle discrete jumps? Where does the future plans for grasses get stored and what caused it to come out when it did?
@c1zx Did you want the scientist to give u the scientific latin name for the creature he would have to refered to that came before us in order for you stupid folk to understand him? The fact remains that the creature we originated from looked almost exactly like what we would call a chimp today. Is that to say it was a chimp? No.. but did the chimps evolve from the same ancestors as we did? yes...and that ancestor waaaay back looked like a silly chimp. Now grow up and stop thinking u know better
The basic reality:DNA studies have ruled the Neanderthal out as a plausible ancestor for modern man (genetic gap too wide) and every other hominid was much FURTHER removed from us THAN the Neanderthal. There is nothing on this planet which we could possibly have evolved from. Evolution is basically a bunch of bullshit.
@Mdebacle: I see you've cut back somewhat on the flamboyant statements. I congratulate you on that.
tell me, what is the theology of hybrids? Is it a miracle that it happened, or did god just allow his kinds to mix? Why don't other kinds mix? Is the world only evil for humans and their interactions with it?
Limited fertility of hybrids would lead us to believe that many species have a common ancestor from which many species were genetically re-designed in one generation. 38 and 36 chr cats from one pair of 38s would be an example.
Humans override this re-designed nature for utility and amusement e.g. mules and ocecats.
Humans were either created or re-designed in one generation, probably both.
@Mdebacle Yes, Humans were created, and yes, Neanderthals were a re-design in a single generation. Human females, used in an unnatural cross breeding program which resulted in a hybrid race. This hybrid race(neanderthals) had either a limited ability or no ability at all to reproduce there own kind.
@icebear1946 LOL, I hate to tell you this. Europeans and Asians have Neanderthal genes, they've already discovered that very recently, it's in the news. We thought the Neanderthal was some primitive ape man but that is not the case. New discoveries are showing that is just prejudice, he built homes, buried the dead, made sculptures, wore jewelery, had a sophisticated glue making process etc etc etc. Only Africans don't have neanderthal genes. The rest of modern man has about 4% Neanderthal.
Please , now it's an iQ supremacy thing! Let it go.. 1st you guys talked about how stupid they were .. And now it's how intelligent they are! Anything to help push white supremacy !
Give it a rest .. No one is falling for that crap no more!
The neanderthals were superior to us. they had bigger brains. they mixed with all humans exept people from south of sahara. Is this proof why people from south of africa have so much lower IQ and intelligent, due to lack of neanderthal genes? My opinion is Yes.
@sorrypapawxz 1-4% neandertal genes in non-africans. 78 nucleotides coded for. barely significantly difference. does this stop people subtly suggesting non-africans are a superior group, while asking themselves a rhetorical question which they will then directly answer for dramatic effect? my opinion is shut the fuck up, you don't understand the science.
@sorrypapawxz plus neanderthals had powerfull strength aka white muscle tissue,
and the black have chimp like muscles aka red muscle tissue which is made for endurance. I am not being racist I just say my theory.
I am trying to say that the cold harsh enviroement where raw strength was more needed to hunt created the white muscle. and black didnt had all this snow and stones everywhere they could run and hunt their animals so they developed endurance btw neadthal cant run so good like black.
i need to ask this . have you studied the possibility that there might be a link between a sharing of genes with neanderthals and autism? i am on the spectrum myself, and am starting to feel strong attraction towards this theory. I wish i had means to search for proofs of this. Right now it's just a gut feeling, as we autistic people are empathetic to each other and animals. can't develop here, but i would love your thoughts on this.
@ediself it sure would be interesting if that was true. here is the link to the article referenced above, have a read, i think you will find it fascinating.
I think human prejudice may have been the culprit to their demise, does that make us human's any better than them? Somehow' deep down, I really doubt it, in fact I think it makes us worse than them.
Only 2 to 4 percent Neanderthal. I don't think being pure human back 500,000 years ago were that different when it comes down to how they lived. I assure you there wasn't any running water, toilets, or even much in written language in that era of mankind development. Society was in it's infancy and just because a pure Neanderthal race never made it to modern day... It doesn't mean that they wouldn't have fared any better than the rest of us.
It is only a *hypothesis* that this shared DNA came from interbreeding with Neanderthals and is contrary to many other sound theories such as the Out-of-Africa model. The reality is that no-one knows, this is merely a scientific guess with no evidence, but that doesn't stop the media from inflating and selling it to the viewers as fact :]
@Bestmanme08: According to the footnote in Wiki, his primacy is contested only in Bryan's own popular press book. That is a pretty trivial cheat. It doesn't seem to have sparked very much debate anywhere, and I imagine that they're both big enough to have settled their differences.
@puncheex Actually Punch, the first edition of Saxons, Vikings and Celts had the terrible lie about Sykes in it! the second edition (the paperback) took it out after it was earlier exposed on amazon that Sykes was a liar! Google "The Lies Presented in this book"!
@Bestmanme08: You seem to be dribbling invective today. Something rock your boat? When someone's opinion can cause that kind of vilification, I have to think medications are being abuse.
Paabo got cheated out of nothing in the long run; the scientific community knows of the controversy and Paabo has justified himself and made his name within it to a higher extent than Sykes has. Enough said.
In reality as many neanderthal and humans mated it is quite possible their numbers dropped to extinction in purer form due to modern disease evolution and their own speed of reproduction relative to humans or neanderthal/human hybrids. Hybrids with greater strength and brain power would be quite future proof in their time period.
I see where this guy going with this shit, once again superiority in a hidden agenda, I thank the Most High that africans have no realationhips in this mess; Neandethal are the wild cave men;
(2) Neanderthal nuclear DNA was close match to human Eurasian DNA.
A person need not be real bright to conclude that Neanderthals were the product of bestiality of human males with Eurasian DNA and non-human females, probably Heidelberg, which were also hybrids.
@Mdebacle: It must be awful to know that you copied this mistake into every thread in YouTube that mentions Neandertals. At least it would be for anyone for whom intellectual integrity means anything.
@Mdebacle: yes: "every thread in YouTube that mentions Neandertals".
Can you do me a favor? You keep mentioning the Economist, and I've looked up as much of that as I can, but there seems to be an article behind the pay wall I can't access. Can you give me a citation to precisely the article you keep referring to so I can see if I have it covered? Thanks.
Quote 1: "It is curious, though, that no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has turned up in humans, since the usual pattern of invasion, in historical times anyway, is for the invaders' males to mate with the invaded's females."
Quote 2: "More than 90% of the "human accelerated regions" that have been identified in modern people are found in Neanderthals, too. But the rest are not.:"
The unstated question is "Where is the chimp-like DNA in Eurasians ?"
@Mdebacle: What chimp-like DNA? Where is "chimp-like DNA" mentioned, or assumed, or relevant to the discussion? We have available to us mtDNA from chimps, gorillas, orangs, H sapiens of many varieties and H neandertalensis. In terms of time, we last shared a common ancestor with orangs about 12 mya, gorillas 7mya, chimps 6 mya, and Neandertal 600,000 years. Now it appears that we and neandertal partially merged again about 50,000 years ago. Now, where does chimp-like DNA come into this?
@puncheex ...yes sir...the neanderthal traits include a long broad face with larger brow ridges....I see it from certain people...however they carry damaged genes....so keep your eyes open....they are not for progenation...thus we weeded them out....
I have been telling you cave dwelling ,wet dog smelling, trogladites for years that whites/asians/arabs are not human now your own scientist confirm what the Bible has been saying for thousands of years..you are the seeds of satan...coverd in hair(fur) like animals, cant survive in the sun, violent, eats raw meat(rare,sushi) , destroys every eco system it steps into ,this is why ALL other races who are not 100% BLACK..are called in scripture goyim..those with goat like hair,human/angel mutants!
And lets not forget 7/10 whites/asians/arabs and the other bastard mulato people they spawned like hispanics and somalians are born with tails!! (do the reasearch)..the main feature in European cave art is men having sex with every type of animal from dogs to bulls, with one another and young boys!!!Beastiality , homosexuality, and pedophila these disgusting acts are found through out the above mentioned races at all points of their history.NEVER in NEGRO culture,these animals have not changed
God is not fiction, it's just that most of you have a very wrong idea of God. What we see around us has a creator, but we cannot imagine the power and knowledge of this creator, so we ascribe false images and limited human minds to this entity as a last resort means of trying to compartmentalize as we do everything, and those who don't agree with one persons depiction choose to not believe in God at all, but they fail to remember the awesome creation around them.
DNA is a large molecule which naturally tends to disintegrate with time, starting to degrade in just a few hours. It was recently argued that DNA had degraded so much by the time it was discovered on a famous bloody glove that it could not be identified accurately. Imagine how much it would degrade in 30,000 years. If the DNA taken from the Neanderthal bones really was 30,000 years old, shouldn't it have decomposed to the point where it could not be analyzed?
@purpleleach1: As in all things, there are exceptions and those cases which have travelled to the far ends of the bell curve (that is, sometimes we just get lucky). Yes DNA degrades, but it does so a great deal at first and a smaller amount as time goes on. The DNA collected from the Neandertal bones has been degraded to the point where most of the chains were on the order of 50-70 base pairs long. Fortunately, this is the way one treats fresh DNA as well - break it into short chains...
... and do analysis on the pieces, so it is as if nature had started the experiment without us. It is made difficult by the great many fragments which are not well represented in the DNA; these have to be guessed at, and perhaps another bone located that might produce the missing pieces. Ultimately, the Neandertal genome will be stitched together, but it is just about at the limit of what can be done with our current science.
@42012jburnna facts ARE facts -- there are no neanderthal markers in humans that have been proven without a doubt. Its a hypothesis has no strong evidence (yet). what you have stated is conjecture and needs to be proven with evidence.
I could CARE less if you FEEL that Neanderthals are in the European genome
@42012jburnna i guess i want to understand why this is an issue? Human beings are 99% exactly the same, whether you are from africa, north america, europe, etc. so i am not sure exactly y u r hung up on sharing of a small amount of DNA (which is statistically not even a problem)
@arp76: Unfortunately, he is right. After this video was made, in May of 2010, Paabo released an analysis of DNA from five modern groups of people and the now virtually complete Neandertal genome which shows that those H spaiens which migrated out of Africa through Neandertal lands in the Near East now have genes (1-4%) taken from Neandertals. The H sapiens that remained in Africa do not have those genes. This might be some kind of argument that Neandertals ...
... are a sub-species of H sapiens, but there are arguments against that, too. This is one of those cases where nature has managed to out-flank our biological definitions. She can be a messy lady.
Of course, creationists are livid. That makes Neandertals part (literally) of the human kind, and since they've always been viewed as the results of evil bestiality for which the flood was justly created, there's all sorts of twisting and turning going on - see Mdebacle's post above, for example.
@42012jburnna by the way neanderthals trace their lineage through homo erectus and homo heidelbergensis -- which is not the same lineage as homo sapiens
@arp76: As we have built up the tree of human life to this point, you are right. We seem to be a later development of H erectus, after H heideburgensis split off and trekked north. Of course, this is tentative and may change, or become more detailed, in the future.
Neanderthals were already in their "classic form" in europe 60 thousand years ago. At the same time the new boys from from the east came over and out competed them for food.
Also about 60 thousand years ago a fossil hominid from Mungo Australia also shared different dna yet clearly had no distinctive Neanderthal features.
No living peoples do.
Upshot?
More likely both Neanderthals AND Asian moderns once shared a common ancestor, a PRE- Neanderthal like homind at best.
I wonder when a mainstream news agency or scientific publication will print the world shaking news "The theory of Evolution is now a proven fact". I would say most likely??? Until then, can anyone answer this simple question, Is the increase of information to the genetic code by evolution possible?
@12gallonhat: No, not before it is certified that all possible fossil evidence on Earth has been dug up and examined. And any other worlds on which a similar sort of biological competition is found to exist as well.
Yes - evolution *is* the process by which information in the genomes of all species increases. Whatever that means, for suitable definitions of biological information.
@puncheex Your admission, "whatever that means, is the "Tell". You have not answered my question. No person living will ever here or see those headlines.
I know what evolution means. No evidence has surfaced showing the process by which information is added to the genetic code is possible. The people looking for that are of the same cloth as those other people at "SETI".
@12gallonhat: Ever since ID/DI started using that particular claim the definition of information has been ambiguous. But, if information is defined consistent with Shannon's theory of Information, then, yes, genomic systems generally increase information over time - just as I said above. The proof is in the increasing complexity of the fossil record. But of course, you've answered it for yourself, in the negative, with no evidence.
@puncheex Information is not ambiguous. You argue like a high priced hollywood lawyer. Shannon's theory is just one in a zillion theories put out there by evolutionary cultists. Please post a list of all the theories ever imagined by E.Sc. There would be no proof in any of them. That is my point. No Proof.
@12gallonhat: No, I argue like an engineer who needs specifications before charging off on an expensive project. But even a lawyer knows the value of a definition in an argument. Claude Shannon's Theory of Information is used in computing and communications around the world; it quantifies information, gives rules on propagation. You seem to rather hate science, even as you use it to post messages. Why should that be? If you want to know what science is, just ask your computer; it can tell you.
... As for there being no proof, how do you define proof (there's that pesky need to know what you mean again)? Personally I never use the word; I prefer evidence, which can be weighed and balanced, at last in principle. There's tons of proof for Shannon's theory; there's tons of proof for the ToE as well. There's not much for the Steady State Theory in cosmology; Big Bang has eaten its shorts. Aether theory has been found wanting; Einstein won. Sorry you don't like science; it's fascinating.
@puncheex I hate closed minded, agenda driven, self absorbed mainstream conformists. I greatly value Science when it is applied in a pure form and without any pre concieved bias.
@puncheex I am interested in all the data that is being produced in this field as well as others. I am very interested in all the research and data on neanderthals. I have my own theory concerning the lineage of neanderthals and I do greatly value new insights and discoveries.
@puncheex "You seem to rather hate science" Your use of the word "rather" is odd. Repeat that sentence a few times and you will see my point. Or maybe you would "rather" not. Have you asked your computer any questions lately? Please do share with us. I would enjoy that almost as much or "rather" enjoy as much as science.
@12gallonhat: And all this has to do with ID and Information Theory, how? You brought it up, and as quickly as I show some knowledge about it, you start nit-picking my choice of "rather". Tell me how information theory indicates that we have to resort to a supernatural explanation for evolution rather (see, there I go!) than a naturalistic one.
@puncheex You like to muddy the waters. Many theorys, stacked, one on top of each other is just foolishness. Having some knowledge on any subject is a good thing, because everyone does. Yes, any theoretical supernatural explanation for the theory of evolution would be just as good as any other because it would not serve to prove evolution as being anything other than just a theory. Anyway, please continue chasing after it, just as a cat chases after it's own tail. It is amusing to watch.
@12gallonhat - It helps if you use the nomenclature properly. Scientists are very good at distinguishing the difference between measurements & ideas. A theory is not a direct measurement - it is an idea meant to interpolate between data points. It explains why the data is what it is & predicts what will be found. It is testable & verifiable but it's an idea. Just as your proposal is JUST an idea. But the Theory of Evolution (the modern synthesis) is as close to a FACT as one can get in science.
@monsieurhassan You are correct. BUT I am getting tired of creationists telling me the earth is 6,000 years old and humans had pet dinosaurs and DRAGONS because there are drawings in caves of large animals.
Some creationists will tell us Atheists that Neanderthal bones were just deformed humans.
SO STUPID............MUSLIMS AND JESUS CULTISTS. I have yet to talk to a Jew, but I guess they are just as insane.
@Karoke77 Paabo got his title stolen for years by Bryan Sykes when Sykes claimed to be the first one to ever extract DNA froma thousands of years dead human in 1989! Paabo did that in 1985 ona 2400 year old human Egyptian mummy!
@Bestmanme08: I suppose, but Sykes only claimed it, apparently, in his own book which is not even a scientific text, but rather a popularization. I read the book, and I didn't even remember him making the statement. So much for this "title". In the end, it is quite possible that Paabo will have a Nobel, while Sykes continues writing popular books.
@Karoke77 How do you know? Even if you are relying on the scientific...I am not claiming to know, but I want to know how you know. Lol, sorry for my attempt at starting an internet debate but i'm curious. I just find that physical matter must end somewhere and physical sciences only provide limited explanations. It is natural then to look to the spiritual. Am I wrong? ..again..just want to hear your thoughts.
@Karoke77How does the age of the earth support your conclusion that God is fiction? I presume what you are getting at is that the Christian Creationist stories are disproven by this? If so, that would be fallible reasoning. Also, the more exitentialist question is, what is fiction, and what is the nature of reality? What we perceive as the physical may not be all that there is to existence. My point is that science is limited, philosophy is perhanps a better suited course of study for this topic
@marvelmills: The Earth is thought to be 4.54 by old. The sun is a few tens of millions of years older. Much hinges on how exactly you define the birth of either body; these figures are used by cosmologists. BTW, the supernova which presumably both seeded our elements and caused the shockwave that started the process has been dated to 4.567 by ago.
a simple difference in a few g's or t's makes a dramatic difference.....simply put, human men banged Neanderthal women....they were brought in fully to the homo sapien genome....unfortunately, the Neanderthal men got pushed out and went a lonely path into the cold dark night..this hurts me very much....you will notice some people have Neanderthal traits...facially....
@johnsmdm: Why do you hypothesize this? The two races merged briefly, perhaps peacefully and perhaps not; the offspring of both went on to live with different tribes. Some of the tribes failed and died away, some did not. It appears that the ones that failed predominated in Neandertal physiology, and that may have been for some reason or it may have been an accident. What is this men vs women stuff?
@puncheex ...i just mean some people today have neanderthal traits facially....I noticed it...the men and women I mentioned is my hypothesis...i would think it would be more likely a homo sapian man would have a better chance at bangin a female neanderthal then vice versa...
@johnsmdm: Can you tell me what these Neandertal facial traits are? Can you verify that such traits lies outside the sapiens range of facial features, such that you can be sure that they are Neandertal traits you are looking at? I would be very careful with that, as there is still a group of sapiens which verifiably have no Neandertal genes, and if your traits should show up there, then you loose.
We know that neanderthals could speak and understand language because Noah warned them about the rain and water that would flood the earth and they just laughed at him.
@Timmay123456789 Yeah, its obvious. DNA testing has proved that we are directly descended from none of the people that died in the flood, so far. Theoretically, we could be directly descended from one or more of the people but it could be hard to find our many times great grandfathers Lamech and Methuselah.
@Timmay123456789 The truth is not so funny to you. It is still true that we are directly related to none of the people that died in the flood, so far. Our gene pool is not that of Adam and Eve. Our gene pool is of Noah and His wife and His son's three wives.
@Timmay123456789 It is science that determines there is an all knowing, all powerful, eternal Creator of the universe. The secret is in the Creation that requires billions of digits of observable directives that commands the formation of the nanomachines that make every life form there is because no machine part ever worked apart from design and it is the very elements that are the designed interchangeable nanoparts so the entire universe made of elements is by design.
molecules are not machines, they were no designed, they were not purposely made, they just interact with themselves and their surroundings based on the laws of physics. Sorry, but these things aren't machines, their molecules.
@Timmay123456789 It is science that determines there is an all knowing, all powerful, eternal Creator of the universe. The secret is in the Creation that requires billions of digits of observable directives that commands the formation of the nanomachines that make every life form there is because no machine part ever worked apart from design and it is the very elements that are the designed interchangeable nanoparts so the entire universe made of elements is by design.
@Seekmosttoprophesy: ...and as of last May, it also contains some of those slippery Neandertals too. Who do you think let them through - perhaps one of his son's wives had a unmentioned, previous marriage? or Noah himself between shifts at the sawmill? It looks like they won the lottery after all, slipping themselves through god's own wrath. As they say, he who laughs last, laughs best.
@puncheex Neanderthals are human. They just are not proved to be related to Africans which are supposed to be the first humans. Something is wrong with that idea. Noah had three sons who each had wives (not related to Noah). There is still plenty of gene variety there. It makes no difference if the people on the Ark were related to people that died in the flood. It makes no difference at all.
@Seekmosttoprophesy: Oh, I agree with what you say there are the end, but you are runing afoul of your fellow literalists. They see Neandertal as a hybrid, a bestial crossing of man and ape kinds, and god wouldn't allow their genes to live today.
You are wrong about genetic variety, though. Man at one point 65,000 years ago was limited to around a thousand individuals, and that was a rather extreme loss of genetic diversity.
@puncheex It was more like 5,000 years ago, 4,400 years ago to be exact, that the gene pool lost a lot of its diversity. Man and apes do not crossbreed.
@puncheex It is not an assumption, it is historical fact and apes do not crossbreed with men. That is a scientific fact. You are the one who is assuming things.
@Seekmosttoprophesy: I don't really know that's true. What evidence do you have that apes cannot, under any circumstances, crossbreed with us? The obvious experiment is out of the question. I don't know whether it is possible or not; I'd like to know how you do, from either a historical or scientific basis. I'll keep ignoring your prattle about assumptions until you can prove your point.
@Seekmosttoprophesy: That is true. However, that is not any absolute boundary to procreation. See wikipedia, "Humanzee" and "chromosomal polymorphism".
@puncheex Assumptions asside, we cannot cross with apes. The apes have a different body model than we have. That means they were made for a different reason and purpose, probably to wake us Christians up out of rite and repetition and to keep unbelievers digging for fossils.
@Seekmosttoprophesy: I could better appreciate your creator-as-Loki-the-trickster if he didn't fatuously plant misleading evidence, then create us with a reasoning intellect, and much later inform us we'll fry in hell for all eternity if we take his tricks at face value. Deceit is not what I expect from a "loving father", were I even inclined to throw away my rationality and grasp this "gift" of faith.
Speculating about why another animal might exist seems to me to involve a huge assumption.
@Seekmosttoprophesy You don't seem to understand how fossils work, and you seem to believe an old man and his family rounded up every animal on earth and fit them into an impossibly small Ark. Tell me, does believing in Noah's Flood require scientific scrutiny or blind faith? Are you really so afraid of being a natural, free, intelligent, but temporary animal of Earth? The afterlife is wishful thinking; there's no evidence. Since there's no God, I'm going to go fornicate in the streets now. Bye!
@VanKlaunch lol yea but also bible has some truth, but alot of it is unlikely but the Flood could of been real, but not the whol world you have to read things the way ancients read it. so what the known world was at the time in that area so very small. possible the NILE flooded or somthing.
Svante Paabo was the first scientist to ever extract DNA from a thousands of year dead human (shown in the NY Times April 16,1985). Jealous scientist Bryan Sykes falsely claimed to be the origianl in his Seven Daughters of Eve book!
some sweet info here
grisgrisy 6 days ago
love the video really good
chrispikeyp 1 week ago
Why do people say Nee-an-der-TAL when it is spelled NeanderTHal? Cant we even agree on such as simple thing as pronunciation?
NestoriusAlpha 3 weeks ago
@NestoriusAlpha The Neanderthal is a valley in Germany where the first skeleton was found, Germans pronounce "th" as "t", and the stress is on the "an"
MrOnkelDunkel 1 week ago
@MrOnkelDunkel Thank you for the explanation.
NestoriusAlpha 1 week ago
Anyone can scan on 'Neanderthal DNA 12.7' and learn that Neanderthals were 1/8th "ancestral", which means they were hybrids 15-16ths human, and 1-16th ape. i.e. they shared 2 million more base pairs with chimps. Modern Eurasian humans have none of this steenking NM DNA in the genome.
Mdebacle 1 month ago
@Mdebacle A new species of human being who lived alongside our ancestors 30,000 years ago has been discovered by scientists. The cavemen, called Denisovans, was identified from DNA and found they Asians in a specific region of our planet actually carry their genes while they are absent in other humans.
truvelocity 4 weeks ago
@truvelocity
In order for Neanderthals to have been 15-16ths human and 1-16th ape, they were the product of humans commiting bestiality with species X which was 7/8ths human and 1/8th ape. We should conclude species X was Denisovan, though not necessarily the ones whose fossils remain.
Mdebacle 4 weeks ago
The Africans are the only group that DOES NOT HAVE the genes. We, the Caucasians are the closest to Neanderthal. Now my question is WHY would we recreate them? That would be like recreating a meat eating dinosaur , really?
mikeysdreamgal 1 month ago
@mikeysdreamgal Only Saharan Africans don't have a trace. Not all Africans. However, all humans still share a common ancestral DNA that neanderthal and humans diverged from was Rhodesiensis, which didn't look too different than humans and neanderthals. So, I am sure that there were many populations who bread together keeping the gene flow until more than one population moved on. I wouldn't be surprised if we find more species that lived along side us, if given time.
truvelocity 4 weeks ago
The audio is too screwed up to listen to.
gsmonks 2 months ago
"They was a group of "humans" that lived in western Asia and Europe" and the they say "we don't have any of their genes". So, how can they really be "human"?
bheadh 4 months ago
I read his paper...his extraction method wsa to be honest a work of genius... but also one of those things that could have been done any time in the past 20 years....
I'd hazard a guess Paabo will get another gong! which would mean he's be the only 20th and 21st century laureate.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
cute how they made the Neandertals nose thin and long like Svante's, does not really fit with the real look of the neandertals skulls that have been found though, huge broad nasal passage
Lily2U1515 6 months ago
You don't BELIEVE Facts you Accept Facts. You believe speculations and nonsensical general theories, like that of god etc. Like killer1919yeah said, Evolution is not a theory (in the general sense) But a Scientific Theory now made a Fact. You don't Believe in Evolution, You accept it.
michel5891 6 months ago
@michel5891 Silly child, The Theory of evolution is still, "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION". Please forgive me for understating this very inportant point.
The Theory of evolution is still and has always been just a THEORY!
IT IS A THEORY! I Has never been proven. It will NEVER BE PROVEN.
Until The day comes when you wake up to the headlines in your
morning paper that reads "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN"
it will remain just a "THEORY"! If You are confused. Lookup the word "THEORY"
BythewayIampink 13 hours ago
@killer1990Yeah - The terms mean the same thing in both instances. The Theory of Relativity is an explanation to connect the data points. It is an idea. Ditto for the Theory of Evolution. No offense to the physicists but there's probably more empirical hands-on evidence for the Theory of Evolution than there is for the ToR.
CO2Junkie 7 months ago 4
@CO2Junkie relativity doesn't have a lot of data in the same way biologists produce mountains and mountains of information....its primarily mathematical... so the entire relativity theory could fit in a file of about 60k along with a written explanation... but evolution would require a compressed file of several terabytes...
Except perhaps for fishers selection equations... if you limited it to that then it'd be small...
Sorry I seen the word physicist there...and no offence taken
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@CO2Junkie relativity doesn't have a lot of data in the same way biologists produce mountains and mountains of information....its primarily mathematical... so the entire relativity theory could fit in a file of about 60k along with a written explanation... but evolution would require a compressed file of several terabytes...
Except perhaps for fishers selection equations... if you limited it to that then it'd be small...
Sorry I seen the word physicist there...and no offence taken
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
how do they know what they are sequencing as the 'neanderthal genome' is actually not just a compromised human dna sequence??
I'm sorry if this question seems petty to some people but I'm new to the world of evolution/creationism and trying to figure out what I think about it so I'm trying to be as skeptical as possible.. I'd really like evolution to be true to be honest but I still have to approach everything skeptically..
If someone could give me some info I'd really appreciate it..
SHIBBYiPANDA 10 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA From an archaeologist's point of view this question is answered through the associated artifacts found with skeletal material that conforms to what we think of as "Neanderthal". There is a series of markers.But it is the associated artifacts, ie "tool kits" that identify a neanderthal site. So--they looked different from us and they had a different material culture from contemporary Homo Sapiens Sapiens. As yet the sample is small but thats what it is: an archaeological "culture"
CobinRain 9 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Because they used the mtdna (maternal) which is encapsulated in it's own structure within cells.Mtdna has a lower mutation and deterioration rate than ydna.
The grave/remains were singular,Samples were taken from internal structures and the conditions were totally controled.Idk if the vids are still on youtube but they showed the collection,analization and controls used at the Max Plank Institute.
goldensassenach 8 months ago
@goldensassenach wow... Interesting... Do u know of any other hominid species whose dna have been sequenced?
SHIBBYiPANDA 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Seriously, could the Neanderthal genome research be seriously flawed?
For how can these ancients knock up ancient moderns and have fertile offspring, if at all,... if their Neurodevelopment was UNLIKE Homo Sapiens?
That doesn't make sense.
PantheraAtrox 11 months ago
Is Neanderthal the bearer of 48 chromosomes, or, 46 ?
PDSalling 11 months ago
Ethical smethical, I want them to recreate one of these mothers so we can see them in real and in the flesh. Our cousins! Mindblowing!
efzt 1 year ago
once you go neanderthal, you never go back
Bikendi100 1 year ago
The fact that these scientists already believe that humans came from chimps, makes me think that the truth won't be found in science, it will just be used to support more of the stupid monkey to man idiocy.
c1zx 1 year ago
@c1zx fact??? no scientist thinks we came from chimps.
userwl2850 1 year ago
@userwl2850 oops I said chimps, I mean monkeys. The ape line, monkey line. I think that we came from a human line, apes came from an ape line and so on. I don't believe evolution is a smooth transition, I believe it's in discrete jumps, as evidenced by the jump from species to species. All possibilities already exist, it's just that some are triggered to manifest.
c1zx 1 year ago
@c1zx you,re right, human evolution wasn,t a smooth transition. type,, "human evolution the jaw muscle" it,s one of my favourite discrete jumps,as you say.
userwl2850 1 year ago
@userwl2850 Wow thx, someone that actually said something nice to me LOL!
c1zx 1 year ago
@c1zx what?
Mrquinton7 1 year ago
@c1zx: Hmmmm, ok. Which line is Neandertal man in? How about H. erectus? Which one does Archeopteryx fit into? Care to theorize how genetics could handle discrete jumps? Where does the future plans for grasses get stored and what caused it to come out when it did?
Or is it just a long series of miracles?
puncheex 1 year ago
@c1zx Did you want the scientist to give u the scientific latin name for the creature he would have to refered to that came before us in order for you stupid folk to understand him? The fact remains that the creature we originated from looked almost exactly like what we would call a chimp today. Is that to say it was a chimp? No.. but did the chimps evolve from the same ancestors as we did? yes...and that ancestor waaaay back looked like a silly chimp. Now grow up and stop thinking u know better
BrutusAlbion 1 year ago
The basic reality:DNA studies have ruled the Neanderthal out as a plausible ancestor for modern man (genetic gap too wide) and every other hominid was much FURTHER removed from us THAN the Neanderthal. There is nothing on this planet which we could possibly have evolved from. Evolution is basically a bunch of bullshit.
icebear1946 1 year ago
@icebear1946
Correct.
Humans were created. Apes were created.
Anything in between (aka hominid) was probaby a hybrid.
They were exterminated and fossilized in some kind of catastrophic flooding.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle: I see you've cut back somewhat on the flamboyant statements. I congratulate you on that.
tell me, what is the theology of hybrids? Is it a miracle that it happened, or did god just allow his kinds to mix? Why don't other kinds mix? Is the world only evil for humans and their interactions with it?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex , good to hear from you.
Theology of hybrids ? Maybe we can start it here.
Limited fertility of hybrids would lead us to believe that many species have a common ancestor from which many species were genetically re-designed in one generation. 38 and 36 chr cats from one pair of 38s would be an example.
Humans override this re-designed nature for utility and amusement e.g. mules and ocecats.
Humans were either created or re-designed in one generation, probably both.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle Yes, Humans were created, and yes, Neanderthals were a re-design in a single generation. Human females, used in an unnatural cross breeding program which resulted in a hybrid race. This hybrid race(neanderthals) had either a limited ability or no ability at all to reproduce there own kind.
12gallonhat 1 year ago
@12gallonhat
As some will ask: why cannot Pääbo & Co. see that Neanderthals were the hybrids ?
The answer is: if Pääbo& Co departed from the paradigm, they wouldn't get enough funding to run a hot dog stand.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@icebear1946 LOL, I hate to tell you this. Europeans and Asians have Neanderthal genes, they've already discovered that very recently, it's in the news. We thought the Neanderthal was some primitive ape man but that is not the case. New discoveries are showing that is just prejudice, he built homes, buried the dead, made sculptures, wore jewelery, had a sophisticated glue making process etc etc etc. Only Africans don't have neanderthal genes. The rest of modern man has about 4% Neanderthal.
c1zx 1 year ago
white people suffer from a ~god complex~!
akaroyalljelly 1 year ago
@akaroyalljelly
and everyone else copies white people
whatsbeendone 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@akaroyalljelly I do not! Now bow down and kiss my feet. LOLOL!
c1zx 1 year ago
@ sorrypapaw
Please , now it's an iQ supremacy thing! Let it go.. 1st you guys talked about how stupid they were .. And now it's how intelligent they are! Anything to help push white supremacy !
Give it a rest .. No one is falling for that crap no more!
jumpmarr 1 year ago
The neanderthals were superior to us. they had bigger brains. they mixed with all humans exept people from south of sahara. Is this proof why people from south of africa have so much lower IQ and intelligent, due to lack of neanderthal genes? My opinion is Yes.
sorrypapawxz 1 year ago
@sorrypapawxz 1-4% neandertal genes in non-africans. 78 nucleotides coded for. barely significantly difference. does this stop people subtly suggesting non-africans are a superior group, while asking themselves a rhetorical question which they will then directly answer for dramatic effect? my opinion is shut the fuck up, you don't understand the science.
thehasslessydney 1 year ago 3
@sorrypapawxz plus neanderthals had powerfull strength aka white muscle tissue,
and the black have chimp like muscles aka red muscle tissue which is made for endurance. I am not being racist I just say my theory.
I am trying to say that the cold harsh enviroement where raw strength was more needed to hunt created the white muscle. and black didnt had all this snow and stones everywhere they could run and hunt their animals so they developed endurance btw neadthal cant run so good like black.
kostya92 1 year ago
i need to ask this . have you studied the possibility that there might be a link between a sharing of genes with neanderthals and autism? i am on the spectrum myself, and am starting to feel strong attraction towards this theory. I wish i had means to search for proofs of this. Right now it's just a gut feeling, as we autistic people are empathetic to each other and animals. can't develop here, but i would love your thoughts on this.
ediself 1 year ago
@ediself it sure would be interesting if that was true. here is the link to the article referenced above, have a read, i think you will find it fascinating.
thehasslessydney 1 year ago
Comment removed
ediself 1 year ago
I think human prejudice may have been the culprit to their demise, does that make us human's any better than them? Somehow' deep down, I really doubt it, in fact I think it makes us worse than them.
SunStridar 1 year ago
Only 2 to 4 percent Neanderthal. I don't think being pure human back 500,000 years ago were that different when it comes down to how they lived. I assure you there wasn't any running water, toilets, or even much in written language in that era of mankind development. Society was in it's infancy and just because a pure Neanderthal race never made it to modern day... It doesn't mean that they wouldn't have fared any better than the rest of us.
SunStridar 1 year ago
It is only a *hypothesis* that this shared DNA came from interbreeding with Neanderthals and is contrary to many other sound theories such as the Out-of-Africa model. The reality is that no-one knows, this is merely a scientific guess with no evidence, but that doesn't stop the media from inflating and selling it to the viewers as fact :]
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
Paabo got cheated out of being the first to extract dna out of a thousands of year old human by Bryan Sykes (see Paabo's wikipedia article)!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
@Bestmanme08 Sykes is a liar, fraud and bum!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
@Bestmanme08: According to the footnote in Wiki, his primacy is contested only in Bryan's own popular press book. That is a pretty trivial cheat. It doesn't seem to have sparked very much debate anywhere, and I imagine that they're both big enough to have settled their differences.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Actually Punch, the first edition of Saxons, Vikings and Celts had the terrible lie about Sykes in it! the second edition (the paperback) took it out after it was earlier exposed on amazon that Sykes was a liar! Google "The Lies Presented in this book"!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
@puncheex Besides Puncheex, where in hell do you get off deciding what lie is trivial and what is major lying!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
@Bestmanme08 Puncheex you bite! What makes you think a proven, worthless liar and fraud like Bryan Sykes is a big man! Not even a question!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
@Bestmanme08 Svante Paabo, you have my sympathy for what Sykes did to you with his rotten scummy, exposed lies!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
@Bestmanme08: You seem to be dribbling invective today. Something rock your boat? When someone's opinion can cause that kind of vilification, I have to think medications are being abuse.
Paabo got cheated out of nothing in the long run; the scientific community knows of the controversy and Paabo has justified himself and made his name within it to a higher extent than Sykes has. Enough said.
puncheex 1 year ago
Evolution, Creationism, or extraterrestrial intervention? Or something else?
YoungJordanAI3 1 year ago
In reality as many neanderthal and humans mated it is quite possible their numbers dropped to extinction in purer form due to modern disease evolution and their own speed of reproduction relative to humans or neanderthal/human hybrids. Hybrids with greater strength and brain power would be quite future proof in their time period.
TeamDriveBy 1 year ago
I see where this guy going with this shit, once again superiority in a hidden agenda, I thank the Most High that africans have no realationhips in this mess; Neandethal are the wild cave men;
challengebytheword 1 year ago
@challengebytheword
Neanderthals were a different kind of human, how does that fit your understanding of the past?
gregrutz 1 year ago
clone a neanderthal.
Ddstairclimber 1 year ago
Now we know two things:
(1) Neanderthal mtDNA was non-human.
(2) Neanderthal nuclear DNA was close match to human Eurasian DNA.
A person need not be real bright to conclude that Neanderthals were the product of bestiality of human males with Eurasian DNA and non-human females, probably Heidelberg, which were also hybrids.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle: It must be awful to know that you copied this mistake into every thread in YouTube that mentions Neandertals. At least it would be for anyone for whom intellectual integrity means anything.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
Every thread, you say ? Let's hope so.
The lack of intellectual integrity would be with those who fail to point out the flaws in the party line.
We congratulate The Economist for their heresy.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle: yes: "every thread in YouTube that mentions Neandertals".
Can you do me a favor? You keep mentioning the Economist, and I've looked up as much of that as I can, but there seems to be an article behind the pay wall I can't access. Can you give me a citation to precisely the article you keep referring to so I can see if I have it covered? Thanks.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
Quote 1: "It is curious, though, that no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has turned up in humans, since the usual pattern of invasion, in historical times anyway, is for the invaders' males to mate with the invaded's females."
Quote 2: "More than 90% of the "human accelerated regions" that have been identified in modern people are found in Neanderthals, too. But the rest are not.:"
The unstated question is "Where is the chimp-like DNA in Eurasians ?"
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle: What chimp-like DNA? Where is "chimp-like DNA" mentioned, or assumed, or relevant to the discussion? We have available to us mtDNA from chimps, gorillas, orangs, H sapiens of many varieties and H neandertalensis. In terms of time, we last shared a common ancestor with orangs about 12 mya, gorillas 7mya, chimps 6 mya, and Neandertal 600,000 years. Now it appears that we and neandertal partially merged again about 50,000 years ago. Now, where does chimp-like DNA come into this?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex ...yes sir...the neanderthal traits include a long broad face with larger brow ridges....I see it from certain people...however they carry damaged genes....so keep your eyes open....they are not for progenation...thus we weeded them out....
johnsmdm 1 year ago
@johnsmdm: You're a stealth comedian ... go on, admit it.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
The chimp-like DNA was in
the Neanderthal mtDNA,
in the missing human DNA in 10% of HAR,
he chimp-like genes referred to in the Mulliken video.
If you are wth the Federales, show us your steenking badges.
If you have Neanderthal in your ancestry, show us your steenking chimp-like DNA.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have been telling you cave dwelling ,wet dog smelling, trogladites for years that whites/asians/arabs are not human now your own scientist confirm what the Bible has been saying for thousands of years..you are the seeds of satan...coverd in hair(fur) like animals, cant survive in the sun, violent, eats raw meat(rare,sushi) , destroys every eco system it steps into ,this is why ALL other races who are not 100% BLACK..are called in scripture goyim..those with goat like hair,human/angel mutants!
Destroyerofthebeast 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And lets not forget 7/10 whites/asians/arabs and the other bastard mulato people they spawned like hispanics and somalians are born with tails!! (do the reasearch)..the main feature in European cave art is men having sex with every type of animal from dogs to bulls, with one another and young boys!!!Beastiality , homosexuality, and pedophila these disgusting acts are found through out the above mentioned races at all points of their history.NEVER in NEGRO culture,these animals have not changed
Destroyerofthebeast 1 year ago
God is not fiction, it's just that most of you have a very wrong idea of God. What we see around us has a creator, but we cannot imagine the power and knowledge of this creator, so we ascribe false images and limited human minds to this entity as a last resort means of trying to compartmentalize as we do everything, and those who don't agree with one persons depiction choose to not believe in God at all, but they fail to remember the awesome creation around them.
AskariWaryaa 1 year ago
@AskariWaryaa Hahaha "awesome creation" oh man, you kill me XD
marvelmills 1 year ago
Finally a scientific view of Neanderthals. Thank you :)
EricTheRed03 1 year ago
@EricTheRed03 You're quite welcome. :)
DNALearningCenter 1 year ago
@purpleleach that DNA wasn't mitochondrial DNA though was it?
amisja 1 year ago
DNA is a large molecule which naturally tends to disintegrate with time, starting to degrade in just a few hours. It was recently argued that DNA had degraded so much by the time it was discovered on a famous bloody glove that it could not be identified accurately. Imagine how much it would degrade in 30,000 years. If the DNA taken from the Neanderthal bones really was 30,000 years old, shouldn't it have decomposed to the point where it could not be analyzed?
purpleleach1 1 year ago
@purpleleach1: As in all things, there are exceptions and those cases which have travelled to the far ends of the bell curve (that is, sometimes we just get lucky). Yes DNA degrades, but it does so a great deal at first and a smaller amount as time goes on. The DNA collected from the Neandertal bones has been degraded to the point where most of the chains were on the order of 50-70 base pairs long. Fortunately, this is the way one treats fresh DNA as well - break it into short chains...
puncheex 1 year ago
... and do analysis on the pieces, so it is as if nature had started the experiment without us. It is made difficult by the great many fragments which are not well represented in the DNA; these have to be guessed at, and perhaps another bone located that might produce the missing pieces. Ultimately, the Neandertal genome will be stitched together, but it is just about at the limit of what can be done with our current science.
puncheex 1 year ago
only EUROPEANS and some asians share NEANDERTHAL DNA (NOT AFRICANS)
42012jburnna 1 year ago
@42012jburnna ya, i don't think so
arp76 1 year ago
@arp76 I dont CARE what you think FACTS are FACTS
42012jburnna 1 year ago
@42012jburnna facts ARE facts -- there are no neanderthal markers in humans that have been proven without a doubt. Its a hypothesis has no strong evidence (yet). what you have stated is conjecture and needs to be proven with evidence.
I could CARE less if you FEEL that Neanderthals are in the European genome
arp76 1 year ago
@arp76 if you CARE LESS then why comment???LOL
42012jburnna 1 year ago
@42012jburnna i guess i want to understand why this is an issue? Human beings are 99% exactly the same, whether you are from africa, north america, europe, etc. so i am not sure exactly y u r hung up on sharing of a small amount of DNA (which is statistically not even a problem)
arp76 1 year ago
@arp76 this help to explain the nature and actions of some peoples behavior in the past and the present
42012jburnna 1 year ago
@arp76: Unfortunately, he is right. After this video was made, in May of 2010, Paabo released an analysis of DNA from five modern groups of people and the now virtually complete Neandertal genome which shows that those H spaiens which migrated out of Africa through Neandertal lands in the Near East now have genes (1-4%) taken from Neandertals. The H sapiens that remained in Africa do not have those genes. This might be some kind of argument that Neandertals ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... are a sub-species of H sapiens, but there are arguments against that, too. This is one of those cases where nature has managed to out-flank our biological definitions. She can be a messy lady.
Of course, creationists are livid. That makes Neandertals part (literally) of the human kind, and since they've always been viewed as the results of evil bestiality for which the flood was justly created, there's all sorts of twisting and turning going on - see Mdebacle's post above, for example.
puncheex 1 year ago
@42012jburnna by the way neanderthals trace their lineage through homo erectus and homo heidelbergensis -- which is not the same lineage as homo sapiens
arp76 1 year ago
@arp76: As we have built up the tree of human life to this point, you are right. We seem to be a later development of H erectus, after H heideburgensis split off and trekked north. Of course, this is tentative and may change, or become more detailed, in the future.
puncheex 1 year ago
Neanderthals were already in their "classic form" in europe 60 thousand years ago. At the same time the new boys from from the east came over and out competed them for food.
Also about 60 thousand years ago a fossil hominid from Mungo Australia also shared different dna yet clearly had no distinctive Neanderthal features.
No living peoples do.
Upshot?
More likely both Neanderthals AND Asian moderns once shared a common ancestor, a PRE- Neanderthal like homind at best.
Cheers.
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago
@PantheraAtrox: It is without doubt that they did. And it was a member of the H erectus species, in Africa, on the order of a million years ago.
puncheex 1 year ago
I wonder when a mainstream news agency or scientific publication will print the world shaking news "The theory of Evolution is now a proven fact". I would say most likely??? Until then, can anyone answer this simple question, Is the increase of information to the genetic code by evolution possible?
12gallonhat 1 year ago
@12gallonhat: No, not before it is certified that all possible fossil evidence on Earth has been dug up and examined. And any other worlds on which a similar sort of biological competition is found to exist as well.
Yes - evolution *is* the process by which information in the genomes of all species increases. Whatever that means, for suitable definitions of biological information.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Your admission, "whatever that means, is the "Tell". You have not answered my question. No person living will ever here or see those headlines.
I know what evolution means. No evidence has surfaced showing the process by which information is added to the genetic code is possible. The people looking for that are of the same cloth as those other people at "SETI".
12gallonhat 1 year ago
@12gallonhat: Ever since ID/DI started using that particular claim the definition of information has been ambiguous. But, if information is defined consistent with Shannon's theory of Information, then, yes, genomic systems generally increase information over time - just as I said above. The proof is in the increasing complexity of the fossil record. But of course, you've answered it for yourself, in the negative, with no evidence.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Information is not ambiguous. You argue like a high priced hollywood lawyer. Shannon's theory is just one in a zillion theories put out there by evolutionary cultists. Please post a list of all the theories ever imagined by E.Sc. There would be no proof in any of them. That is my point. No Proof.
12gallonhat 1 year ago
@12gallonhat: No, I argue like an engineer who needs specifications before charging off on an expensive project. But even a lawyer knows the value of a definition in an argument. Claude Shannon's Theory of Information is used in computing and communications around the world; it quantifies information, gives rules on propagation. You seem to rather hate science, even as you use it to post messages. Why should that be? If you want to know what science is, just ask your computer; it can tell you.
puncheex 1 year ago
... As for there being no proof, how do you define proof (there's that pesky need to know what you mean again)? Personally I never use the word; I prefer evidence, which can be weighed and balanced, at last in principle. There's tons of proof for Shannon's theory; there's tons of proof for the ToE as well. There's not much for the Steady State Theory in cosmology; Big Bang has eaten its shorts. Aether theory has been found wanting; Einstein won. Sorry you don't like science; it's fascinating.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex I hate closed minded, agenda driven, self absorbed mainstream conformists. I greatly value Science when it is applied in a pure form and without any pre concieved bias.
12gallonhat 1 year ago
@puncheex I am interested in all the data that is being produced in this field as well as others. I am very interested in all the research and data on neanderthals. I have my own theory concerning the lineage of neanderthals and I do greatly value new insights and discoveries.
12gallonhat 1 year ago
@puncheex "You seem to rather hate science" Your use of the word "rather" is odd. Repeat that sentence a few times and you will see my point. Or maybe you would "rather" not. Have you asked your computer any questions lately? Please do share with us. I would enjoy that almost as much or "rather" enjoy as much as science.
12gallonhat 1 year ago
@12gallonhat: And all this has to do with ID and Information Theory, how? You brought it up, and as quickly as I show some knowledge about it, you start nit-picking my choice of "rather". Tell me how information theory indicates that we have to resort to a supernatural explanation for evolution rather (see, there I go!) than a naturalistic one.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex You like to muddy the waters. Many theorys, stacked, one on top of each other is just foolishness. Having some knowledge on any subject is a good thing, because everyone does. Yes, any theoretical supernatural explanation for the theory of evolution would be just as good as any other because it would not serve to prove evolution as being anything other than just a theory. Anyway, please continue chasing after it, just as a cat chases after it's own tail. It is amusing to watch.
12gallonhat 1 year ago
@12gallonhat - It helps if you use the nomenclature properly. Scientists are very good at distinguishing the difference between measurements & ideas. A theory is not a direct measurement - it is an idea meant to interpolate between data points. It explains why the data is what it is & predicts what will be found. It is testable & verifiable but it's an idea. Just as your proposal is JUST an idea. But the Theory of Evolution (the modern synthesis) is as close to a FACT as one can get in science.
CO2Junkie 8 months ago
Science and morality, an interesting subject.
benthemiester 1 year ago
its sad to see such few few views for such a great scientific breakthrough, I guess people arent interested in what makes us human!
GARRYKINGLIVE 1 year ago
God is FICTION.
Karoke77 1 year ago
It is funny how every discussion about evolution makes a leap to God. It is a non-sequiter: "Because evolution is true, there is no God".
monsieurhassan 1 year ago
@monsieurhassan You are correct. BUT I am getting tired of creationists telling me the earth is 6,000 years old and humans had pet dinosaurs and DRAGONS because there are drawings in caves of large animals.
Some creationists will tell us Atheists that Neanderthal bones were just deformed humans.
SO STUPID............MUSLIMS AND JESUS CULTISTS. I have yet to talk to a Jew, but I guess they are just as insane.
Karoke77 1 year ago
You're getting tired because you're obsessed with them, I say, live and let live :)
monsieurhassan 1 year ago
@monsieurhassan You are correct. I am just tired of bombs and war "FOR GOD."
It is like watching monkeys at a zoo. THAT is why Atheists can appear arrogant. SO FRUSTRATING.
Karoke77 1 year ago
@Karoke77 Paabo got his title stolen for years by Bryan Sykes when Sykes claimed to be the first one to ever extract DNA froma thousands of years dead human in 1989! Paabo did that in 1985 ona 2400 year old human Egyptian mummy!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
@Bestmanme08 The New York Times in 1985 showed this of Paabo! Read the book (Did these stories really happen?) for more on Paabo!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
@Bestmanme08: I suppose, but Sykes only claimed it, apparently, in his own book which is not even a scientific text, but rather a popularization. I read the book, and I didn't even remember him making the statement. So much for this "title". In the end, it is quite possible that Paabo will have a Nobel, while Sykes continues writing popular books.
puncheex 1 year ago
@Karoke77 How do you know? Even if you are relying on the scientific...I am not claiming to know, but I want to know how you know. Lol, sorry for my attempt at starting an internet debate but i'm curious. I just find that physical matter must end somewhere and physical sciences only provide limited explanations. It is natural then to look to the spiritual. Am I wrong? ..again..just want to hear your thoughts.
antixtheeloquator 1 year ago
@antixtheeloquator The earth is over 4 billion years old. Humans invented God.
Karoke77 1 year ago
@Karoke77How does the age of the earth support your conclusion that God is fiction? I presume what you are getting at is that the Christian Creationist stories are disproven by this? If so, that would be fallible reasoning. Also, the more exitentialist question is, what is fiction, and what is the nature of reality? What we perceive as the physical may not be all that there is to existence. My point is that science is limited, philosophy is perhanps a better suited course of study for this topic
antixtheeloquator 1 year ago
@antixtheeloquator You are WAY overthinking this. Look up at the stars at night. God is a fairly recent human invention.
Karoke77 1 year ago
@Karoke77 I don't understand that logic. Anyway you are entitled to your opinion. It's not my intention to convert or harass you.
antixtheeloquator 1 year ago
@antixtheeloquator Thank you! Peace to you.
Karoke77 1 year ago
@Karoke77 Sir, the sun is estimated to be around 4 billion years old. Not the earth
marvelmills 1 year ago
@marvelmills FROM: NASA (USA): The age of the earth and moon are over 4 billion years old. So is the sun. The solar system is the same age.
Karoke77 1 year ago
@marvelmills: The Earth is thought to be 4.54 by old. The sun is a few tens of millions of years older. Much hinges on how exactly you define the birth of either body; these figures are used by cosmologists. BTW, the supernova which presumably both seeded our elements and caused the shockwave that started the process has been dated to 4.567 by ago.
puncheex 1 year ago
a simple difference in a few g's or t's makes a dramatic difference.....simply put, human men banged Neanderthal women....they were brought in fully to the homo sapien genome....unfortunately, the Neanderthal men got pushed out and went a lonely path into the cold dark night..this hurts me very much....you will notice some people have Neanderthal traits...facially....
johnsmdm 1 year ago
@johnsmdm: Why do you hypothesize this? The two races merged briefly, perhaps peacefully and perhaps not; the offspring of both went on to live with different tribes. Some of the tribes failed and died away, some did not. It appears that the ones that failed predominated in Neandertal physiology, and that may have been for some reason or it may have been an accident. What is this men vs women stuff?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex ...i just mean some people today have neanderthal traits facially....I noticed it...the men and women I mentioned is my hypothesis...i would think it would be more likely a homo sapian man would have a better chance at bangin a female neanderthal then vice versa...
johnsmdm 1 year ago
@johnsmdm: Can you tell me what these Neandertal facial traits are? Can you verify that such traits lies outside the sapiens range of facial features, such that you can be sure that they are Neandertal traits you are looking at? I would be very careful with that, as there is still a group of sapiens which verifiably have no Neandertal genes, and if your traits should show up there, then you loose.
puncheex 1 year ago
We know that neanderthals could speak and understand language because Noah warned them about the rain and water that would flood the earth and they just laughed at him.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy
LOL good one, i rarely laugh out loud LOL
Timmay123456789 1 year ago
@Timmay123456789 Yeah, its obvious. DNA testing has proved that we are directly descended from none of the people that died in the flood, so far. Theoretically, we could be directly descended from one or more of the people but it could be hard to find our many times great grandfathers Lamech and Methuselah.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy
yea, there was never any flood like that. I thought u were joking with ur first comment, now it'snot so funny.
Timmay123456789 1 year ago
@Timmay123456789 The truth is not so funny to you. It is still true that we are directly related to none of the people that died in the flood, so far. Our gene pool is not that of Adam and Eve. Our gene pool is of Noah and His wife and His son's three wives.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy
sorry im not christian, i dont believe that stuff, i believe in science.
Timmay123456789 1 year ago
@Timmay123456789 It is science that determines there is an all knowing, all powerful, eternal Creator of the universe. The secret is in the Creation that requires billions of digits of observable directives that commands the formation of the nanomachines that make every life form there is because no machine part ever worked apart from design and it is the very elements that are the designed interchangeable nanoparts so the entire universe made of elements is by design.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
molecules are not machines, they were no designed, they were not purposely made, they just interact with themselves and their surroundings based on the laws of physics. Sorry, but these things aren't machines, their molecules.
Timmay123456789 1 year ago
@Timmay123456789 It is science that determines there is an all knowing, all powerful, eternal Creator of the universe. The secret is in the Creation that requires billions of digits of observable directives that commands the formation of the nanomachines that make every life form there is because no machine part ever worked apart from design and it is the very elements that are the designed interchangeable nanoparts so the entire universe made of elements is by design.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy: ...and as of last May, it also contains some of those slippery Neandertals too. Who do you think let them through - perhaps one of his son's wives had a unmentioned, previous marriage? or Noah himself between shifts at the sawmill? It looks like they won the lottery after all, slipping themselves through god's own wrath. As they say, he who laughs last, laughs best.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Neanderthals are human. They just are not proved to be related to Africans which are supposed to be the first humans. Something is wrong with that idea. Noah had three sons who each had wives (not related to Noah). There is still plenty of gene variety there. It makes no difference if the people on the Ark were related to people that died in the flood. It makes no difference at all.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy: Oh, I agree with what you say there are the end, but you are runing afoul of your fellow literalists. They see Neandertal as a hybrid, a bestial crossing of man and ape kinds, and god wouldn't allow their genes to live today.
You are wrong about genetic variety, though. Man at one point 65,000 years ago was limited to around a thousand individuals, and that was a rather extreme loss of genetic diversity.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex It was more like 5,000 years ago, 4,400 years ago to be exact, that the gene pool lost a lot of its diversity. Man and apes do not crossbreed.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy: Do tell. What evidence do you have for these two marvelous assumptions?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex It is not an assumption, it is historical fact and apes do not crossbreed with men. That is a scientific fact. You are the one who is assuming things.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy: I don't really know that's true. What evidence do you have that apes cannot, under any circumstances, crossbreed with us? The obvious experiment is out of the question. I don't know whether it is possible or not; I'd like to know how you do, from either a historical or scientific basis. I'll keep ignoring your prattle about assumptions until you can prove your point.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Ape DNA is not compatible with humans because they have a different number of chromosomes.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy: That is true. However, that is not any absolute boundary to procreation. See wikipedia, "Humanzee" and "chromosomal polymorphism".
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Assumptions asside, we cannot cross with apes. The apes have a different body model than we have. That means they were made for a different reason and purpose, probably to wake us Christians up out of rite and repetition and to keep unbelievers digging for fossils.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy: I could better appreciate your creator-as-Loki-the-trickster if he didn't fatuously plant misleading evidence, then create us with a reasoning intellect, and much later inform us we'll fry in hell for all eternity if we take his tricks at face value. Deceit is not what I expect from a "loving father", were I even inclined to throw away my rationality and grasp this "gift" of faith.
Speculating about why another animal might exist seems to me to involve a huge assumption.
puncheex 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy Absolutely. No. Evidence. Of. Flood. Period..........dot....
VanKlaunch 1 year ago
@VanKlaunch Every fossil is evidence of the flood and the Ark is still there on the mountain where it rested after the flood.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy You don't seem to understand how fossils work, and you seem to believe an old man and his family rounded up every animal on earth and fit them into an impossibly small Ark. Tell me, does believing in Noah's Flood require scientific scrutiny or blind faith? Are you really so afraid of being a natural, free, intelligent, but temporary animal of Earth? The afterlife is wishful thinking; there's no evidence. Since there's no God, I'm going to go fornicate in the streets now. Bye!
VanKlaunch 1 year ago
@VanKlaunch lol yea but also bible has some truth, but alot of it is unlikely but the Flood could of been real, but not the whol world you have to read things the way ancients read it. so what the known world was at the time in that area so very small. possible the NILE flooded or somthing.
TAKEMARU666 1 year ago
@VanKlaunch The machine parts inside of you are the evicence of your Creator because machine parts do not exist without a Creator.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
Stimulating to hear someone with such a clear grasp on a subject. Instant favourite.
rhov233 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
samysamy25 2 years ago
Interesting video, will watch for follow-ups on your research.
birdwatcher23 2 years ago
Svante Paabo was the first scientist to ever extract DNA from a thousands of year dead human (shown in the NY Times April 16,1985). Jealous scientist Bryan Sykes falsely claimed to be the origianl in his Seven Daughters of Eve book!
Bestmanme08 2 years ago
"....and the possibility of recreating a Neanderthal today."
We don't need any more Creationists, thank you.
Desertphile 2 years ago 11
Comment removed
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@Desertphile The place in which you are going, most certainly there will be none.
12gallonhat 1 year ago
@12gallonhat ; I'm going to Aurora, Colorado. There's thousands of Creationists there.
Desertphile 1 year ago