Neandertal mother, Denisovan father—Newly-sequenced genome sheds light on interactions between ancient hominins

August 22, 2018 by Marlowe Hood
This bone fragment ('Denisova 11') was found in 2012 at Denisova Cave in Russia by Russian archaeologists and represents the daughter of a Neandertal mother and a Denisovan father. Credit: T. Higham, University of Oxford

Denny was an inter-species love child.

Her mother was a Neanderthal, but her father was Denisovan, a distinct species of primitive human that also roamed the Eurasian continent 50,000 years ago, scientists reported Wednesday in the journal Nature.

Nicknamed by Oxford University scientists, Denisova 11—her official name—was at least 13 when she died, for reasons unknown.

"There was earlier evidence of interbreeding between different hominin, or early human, groups," said lead author Vivian Slon, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

"But this is the first time that we have found a direct, first-generation offspring," she told AFP.

Denny's surprising pedigree was unlocked from a bone fragment unearthed in 2012 by Russian archeologists at the Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains of Siberia.

Analysis of the bone's DNA left no doubt: the chromosomes were a 50-50 mix of Neanderthal and Denisovan, two distinct species of early humans that split apart between 400,000 to 500,000 years ago.

"I initially thought that they must have screwed up in the lab," said senior author and Max Planck Institute professor Svante Paabo, who identified the first Denisovan a decade ago at the same site.

Worldwide, fewer than two dozen early human genomes from before 40,000 years ago—Neanderthal, Denisovan, Homo sapiens—have been sequenced, and the chances of stumbling on a half-and-half hybrid seemed vanishingly small.

Or not.

Inter-species hanky-panky

"The very fact that we found this individual of mixed Neanderthal and Denisovan origins suggests that they interbred much more often than we thought," said Slon.

Paabo agreed: "They must have quite commonly had kids together, otherwise we wouldn't have been this lucky."

A 40,000 year-old Homo sapiens with a Neanderthal ancestor a few generations back, recently found in Romania, also bolsters this notion.

But the most compelling evidence that inter-species hanky-panky in Late Pleistocene Eurasia may not have been that rare lies in the genes of contemporary humans.

About two percent of DNA in non-Africans across the globe today originate with Neanderthals, earlier studies have shown.

View of the valley from above the Denisova Cave archaeological site, Russia. Credit: B. Viola, MPI f. Evolutionary Anthropology

Denisovan remnants are also widespread, though less evenly.

"We find traces of Denisovan DNA—less than one percent—everwhere in Asia and among native Americans," said Paabo.

"Aboriginal Australians and people in Papua New Guinea have about five percent."

Taken together, these facts support a novel answer to the hotly debated question of why Neanderthals—which had successfully spread across parts of western and central Europe—disappeared some 40,000 years ago.

Up to now, their mysterious demise has been blamed on disease, climate change, genocide at the hands of Homo sapiens, or some combination of the above.

But what if our species—arriving in waves from Africa—overwhelmed Neanderthals, and perhaps Denisovans, with affection rather than aggression?

Conquered or absorbed?

"Part of the story of these groups is that they may simply have been absorbed by modern populations," said Paabo.

"The modern humans were more numerous, and the other species might have been incorporated."

Recent research showing that Neanderthals were not, in fact, knuckle-dragging brutes makes this scenario all the more plausible.

Our genetic cousins executed sophisticated hunting strategies in groups; made fires, tools, clothing and jewellery; and buried their dead with symbolic ornaments.

They painted animal frescos on cave walls at least 64,000 years ago, well before most Homo sapiens arrived in Europe.

Far less is known about Denisovans, but they may have suffered a similar fate.

Paabo established their existence with an incomplete finger bone and two molars dated to some 80,000 years ago.

Among their genetic legacy to some modern humans is a variant of the gene EPAS1 that makes it easier for the body to access oxygen by regulating the production of haemoglobin, according to a 2014 study.

Nearly 90 percent of Tibetans have this precious variant, compared with only nine percent of Han Chinese, the dominant—and predominantly lowland—ethnic group in China.

Neanderthals and Denisovans might have intermingled even more but for the fact that the former settled mostly in Europe, and the latter in central and East Asia, the researchers speculated.

Explore further: German researchers publish full Neanderthal genome

More information: Viviane Slon et al, The genome of the offspring of a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0455-x

Related Stories

German researchers publish full Neanderthal genome

March 19, 2013

(Phys.org) —The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, in Leipzig, Germany, hascompleted the genome sequence of a Neandertal and makes the entire sequence available to the scientific community today.

Oldest hominin DNA sequenced

December 4, 2013

Using novel techniques to extract and study ancient DNA researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, have determined an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a 400,000-year-old ...

Entire genome of extinct human decoded from fossil

February 7, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- In 2010, Svante Pääbo and his colleagues presented a draft version of the genome from a small fragment of a human finger bone discovered in Denisova Cave in southern Siberia. The DNA sequences showed ...

Recommended for you

Excavators find tombs buried in Bolivia 500 years ago

November 17, 2018

Archaeologists say they found tombs at a Bolivian quarry containing remains from more than 500 years ago that give an insight into the interaction of various peoples with the expanding Inca empire.

Preventing chemical weapons as sciences converge

November 15, 2018

Alarming examples of the dangers from chemical weapons have been seen recently in the use of industrial chemicals and the nerve agent sarin against civilians in Syria, and in the targeted assassination operations using VX ...

93 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AllStBob
5 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2018
""I initially thought that they must have screwed up in the lab," said senior author and Max Planck Institute professor Svante Paabo"

It would appear the screwing took place outside the lab.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2018
Svante Pääbo is a very interesting and intelligent chap. If you have access to his book;
Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes, then I would highly recommend getting it. Great read.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2018
Svante Pääbo is a very interesting and intelligent chap. If you have access to his book;
Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes, then I would highly recommend getting it. Great read.


Actually, I did a little review of it here;
http://www.intern...count=18
marcush
3 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2018
I still find it hard to believe that such a rare individual happens to turn into such a rare fossil.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2018
I am quite confused wrt the most ancient ancestry of Neandertal's genesis in Europe. We are told that Homo Sapiens who are non-Africans have ~2% Neandertal DNA. And yet, Palaeoanthropologists have claimed that ALL hominids came from/originated in Africa.
If Black Africans have no Neandertal DNA, then how could it be that Neandertals originally came from Africa?
Even if the Neandertals were the first to leave Africa and settled in Europe, they should have retained the same DNA as Black Africans no matter the timeframe of their migration to Europe.
Are they saying that Neandertals, while they were still in Africa, had never interbred with Black Africans?
The Neandertals could not have been too much different from the Homo Sapiens who also migrated to Europe sometime later, since H. Sapiens were able to breed with Neandertals.
The other source of wonder is: if H.Sapiens left Africa, then why is there a designation of "non-African" wrt the Caucasian/Caucasoid race?
Ojorf
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2018
SEU, it's actually quite simple.

Home ergaster/erectus evolved in Africa, then spread around the world.
From this seed stock Neandertals evolved somewhere in Europe and Denisovians somewhere in Asia, while back in Afrika modern humans evolved.
Homo sapiens then spread across the world and in the process interbred with the locals in Europe and Asia.

I think your confusion stems from the 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA found in modern Europeans.

This does NOT mean we do not share 96-99% DNA at all.
The 1-4% mentioned is not of the total DNA, but only 1-4% of the DNA we do NOT share with Neanderthals.
We actually share almost ALL our DNA with them, of the 1 or 2% that we do differ, we in addition also share 1-4%.
Make sense now?
blazh femur
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2018
I thought interspecies marriage was prohibited 50,000 years ago.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2018
SEU, it's actually quite simple.

Home ergaster/erectus evolved in Africa, then spread around the world.
From this seed stock Neandertals evolved somewhere in Europe and Denisovians somewhere in Asia, while back in Afrika modern humans evolved.
Homo sapiens then spread across the world and in the process interbred with the locals in Europe and Asia.

I think your confusion stems from the 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA found in modern Europeans.

This does NOT mean we do not share 96-99% DNA at all.
The 1-4% mentioned is not of the total DNA, but only 1-4% of the DNA we do NOT share with Neanderthals.
We actually share almost ALL our DNA with them, of the 1 or 2% that we do differ, we in addition also share 1-4%.
Make sense now?
says Ojorf

No. You have confused the issue even more, sorry to say. The ~2% DNA is what we are told that we SHARE with Neandertals, or inherited FROM them.

-CONTINUED-
TorbjornLarsson
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2018
I still find it hard to believe that such a rare individual happens to turn into such a rare fossil.


You, like many anthropologists, may confuse the number of matings with the number of crossbreeds.

Paleontologist John Hawks: "I've seen a widespread misconception about Neandertal sex. I follow many professional colleagues on Facebook, some of whom are highly respected for their work but maybe not so up-to-date on genetic methods. I have seen a few of them taking up this misconception and spreading it through their professional networks. I won't point to those social media posts here, because their authors did not intend them for widespread distribution, but I do want to address the misconception.

Their idea is that geneticists are trying to count the number of sexual encounters between modern humans and Neandertals. Not the number of contacts between populations, but an actual coital count. Like they are reading the credits of a porno movie."

[tbctd]
TorbjornLarsson
3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2018
[ctd] "For a total effective number of 600-1000 F1 hybrid individuals, which is a bare minimum, this might mean upward of 2000-3000 actual F1 hybrids. But then all of my assumptions to this point have been unrealistic, all minimizing the extent of interbreeding between populations. In reality, many more individuals must have been mating, over a much longer span of time than a single generation.

Some of these hybrids were the products of Neandertal love affairs. Many were the daughters and sons of Neandertal wives or husbands who spent long passionate lives with modern mates. Some were likely the children of captured Neandertal slaves. Some were siblings, so the number of Neandertal mothers or fathers was to some extent smaller than the number of hybrids introduced into modern populations."

[ http://johnhawks....016.html ]
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2018
-CONTINUED-
From the article: "About two percent of DNA in non-Africans across the globe today originate with Neanderthals, earlier studies have shown."

By "NON-Africans" I assume meaning NON-BLACK Africans. There is nothing said about H.Sapiens sharing 96 - 99% of our DNA with Neandertals. If that were the case, then WE would be Neandertals, rather than H.Sapiens and any small differences between H.Sapiens and Neandertal would have been blurred to the point of irrelevancy.

Accordingly, H.erectus & H. ergaster may have interbred with Black H.Sapiens IN AFRICA, which brings the possibility that the DNA of ergaster and erectus remain within Black Africans. It would be interesting if the researchers had checked the DNA of Black African individuals for such a mixture along with H.Sapiens DNA.

-CONTINUED-
TorbjornLarsson
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2018
I am quite confused wrt the most ancient ancestry of Neandertal's genesis in Europe. We are told that Homo Sapiens who are non-Africans have ~2% Neandertal DNA. And yet, Palaeoanthropologists have claimed that ALL hominids came from/originated in Africa.


Yes.

Let me first note on your racist ideas, that is culture. Many Africans are not "black", many non-Africans are "black", depends on the distance from the equator on both sides. Genetically we can see continent-wide demes with 0.01 % (IIRC) genetic difference. Humans are 1/10 the genetic spread of chimps, who have no races (but two species: chimp & bonobo).

Now then, archaic humans spread from Africa several times; Neanderthal, Denisovan and African genomes diverged ~ 500 kyrs ago. When we Africans spread ~ 100 kyrs ago and swamped the others at ~ 10 times their numbers, the many crossbreeds left ~ 10 % difference just from dilution. Increased selection in the larger pop made these alleles go down to ~ 1 %.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2018
-CONTINUED-
If H.ergaster and/or H.erectus are the progenitors of Neandertalensis in Europe, then non-African H.Sapiens should also carry the DNA of erectus and/or ergaster. Perhaps THAT DNA is what has been considered as "Junk DNA".

I am interested in this as my test results indicate that I carry about 1.5 - 2% DNA from Neandertalensis being non-African H.Sapiens - as most Europeans are.
TorbjornLarsson
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2018
Perhaps THAT DNA is what has been considered as "Junk DNA".


No. "Junk" DNA was originally a term for inactivated genes (pseudogenes), later for all sorts of non-coding DNA. We are talking functional differences here, if you include non-coding DNA individuals differ 100 times more since it is longer sequence and not exposed to selection. I think my previous comment should clarify the rest, but ask if not.

On the exact pathway to archaic humans and Africans, it is still open. We know the divergence dates, and time wise something like H. ergaster could have been the ancestor of all three lineages. Since we have no fossil sequences that far back we cannot easily connect the genome record to the fossil record.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2018
I am quite confused wrt the most ancient ancestry of Neandertal's genesis in Europe. We are told that Homo Sapiens who are non-Africans have ~2% Neandertal DNA. And yet, Palaeoanthropologists have claimed that ALL hominids came from/originated in Africa.


Yes.

Let me first note on your racist ideas, that is culture. Many Africans are not "black", many non-Africans are "black", depends on the distance from the equator on both sides. Genetically we can see continent-wide demes with 0.01 % (IIRC) genetic difference. Humans are 1/10 the genetic spread of chimps (..).
says tbgl

First, I have no "racist" ideas, as I am aware that ALL Homo Sapiens are equal under the skin.
But there ARE differences, no matter how superficial those differences may seem - e.g. sickle-cell disease is suffered mostly by Black Africans (and some who originate in the Near East and some southern Italians).
-CONTINUED-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2018
"The modern humans were more numerous, and the other species might have been incorporated."

Neanderthal had spent 1000s of gens in temperate climes and like most such species their reproduction had become seasonal. As such they could not replace battle losses as fast as the tropical cromag imterlopers, who mated year round.

They were simply outgrown and overwhelmed.

A tactic adopted by the way by the tropical religions which have swept the world clean of their temperate pagan counterparts, and which now threaten us with extinction.
I am quite confused
yeah you got that right troll.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2018
-CONTINUED-
The skin color in Dravidians of India is very similar to Black Africans, but not the hair texture.
Of course, UV rays and strong sunlight are capable of darkening skin melanin. But the article says "NON-AFRICANS, which does not differentiate in light or dark skin color or hair texture OR culture.
Culture is based on tribal values such as music, dance, art, language, etc., and is often based on land topography.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2018
Perhaps THAT DNA is what has been considered as "Junk DNA".


No. "Junk" DNA was originally a term for inactivated genes (pseudogenes), later for all sorts of non-coding DNA. We are talking functional differences here, if you include non-coding DNA individuals differ 100 times more since it is longer sequence and not exposed to selection. I think my previous comment should clarify the rest, but ask if not.

On the exact pathway to archaic humans and Africans, it is still open. We know the divergence dates, and time wise something like H. ergaster could have been the ancestor of all three lineages. Since we have no fossil sequences that far back we cannot easily connect the genome record to the fossil record.
says tbgl

"Could have been" is as accurate as "as previously thought". Sadly, we may never realise the truth of origination wrt the DNA in bones that are no longer viable to test for origins to grandfather in. Unless they come up with better methods.
Ojorf
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
No. You have confused the issue even more, sorry to say. The ~2% DNA is what we are told that we SHARE with Neandertals, or inherited FROM them.


No you are as confused as you claimed, even more so it seems.
We share an estimated 98-99% DNA with Denisovians and Neanderthals, look it up it's not difficult.
The the 1-2% difference we have, happened during the separation while we evolved further in Africa and and the Denisovians and Neanderthals evolved in Asia and Europe.
After we met up again and interbred we picked up a few % of the new DNA (that has diverged in the meantime while we were separated), now some people share 1-4% of the new Neanderthal DNA that originated in Neanderthals in Europe.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018

https://gizmodo.c...19182225

According to the link above, the Neandertals gave us (from the ones found in Croatia) 1.8 - 2.6% Neandertal DNA. Nothing mentioned of your 98 - 99%.
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
I admit I sucked the 98-99% similarity we share with Neanderthals out of my thumb, I was wrong.
We actually share an estimated 99.7% of our DNA with Neanderthals.

https://news.nati...na-gene/
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
The genetic study team reached their conclusion after comparing the genomes of five living humans—from China, France, Papua New Guinea, southern Africa, and western Africa—against the available "rough draft" of the Neanderthal genome.
The results showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to modern human DNA, versus, for example, 98.8 percent for modern humans and chimps, according to the study.


See you make no sense.

Has your confusion ebbed yet?
Ojorf
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
The articles you have read and linked to assume a basic knowledge of genetics you lack, no wonder you were confused about the percentages.

Google "Neanderthal genome project"
Ojorf
3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
Just for you SEU:

https://genetics....uropeans

You are just like the other cranks here, latching onto a little detail, totally out of context, and ignorant of the bigger picture and how things actually work.

"So the 2-4% of a non-African person's genome that is of Neanderthal origin will still be 99.7% similar to the matching stretch of DNA in an African person's genome. In terms of the whole genome, that is only 0.006% of actual difference!"
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
I admit I sucked the 98-99% similarity we share with Neanderthals out of my thumb, I was wrong.
We actually share an estimated 99.7% of our DNA with Neanderthals.

https://news.nati...na-gene/


Your link is old/outdated - from 8 May 2010
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
The articles you have read and linked to assume a basic knowledge of genetics you lack, no wonder you were confused about the percentages.

Google "Neanderthal genome project"


The link I provided is from October 2017, while yours is from 2010. That's a seven year difference. Research continued in the intervening time for new discoveries.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
Hey dipshit, did you read my link, it explains all the percentages you are so confused about in small enough words that you should be able to understand.

Nothing has changed since the genome was first sequenced in 2010, it has just been done more thoroughly and accurately since. We still share 99.7 % DNA with Neanderthals.
Take of your blinkers, get rid of your agenda and misconceptions and understand the science.

Do you honestly (I don't think so, you seem dishonest) believe we share only 2-4% DNA with Neanderthals but 80% with cows?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
Just for you SEU:

https://genetics....uropeans

You are just like the other cranks here, latching onto a little detail, totally out of context, and ignorant of the bigger picture and how things actually work.

"So the 2-4% of a non-African person's genome that is of Neanderthal origin will still be 99.7% similar to the matching stretch of DNA in an African person's genome. In terms of the whole genome, that is only 0.006% of actual difference!"


You seem to be saying that a NON-African's DNA and the DNA of an African is the same - 99.7%. IF that was the case, then NON-Africans should have the same physical appearance of Black Africans, including hair texture and eye color. 99.7% is too great a percentage to have much of any difference in physical features - not even including the Neandertal DNA which is not very much.
Ojorf
4 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2018
You seem to be saying that a NON-African's DNA and the DNA of an African is the same - 99.7%. IF that was the case, then NON-Africans should have the same physical appearance of Black Africans, including hair texture and eye color. 99.7% is too great a percentage to have much of any difference in physical features - not even including


No Egg Face, I'm not saying that, you are still confused, your racism is showing. Read the link again, slowly.

Africans and non-Africans do not share only 99.7% DNA, that is what we share with Neanderthals. Get it?
All Homo sapience share at least 99.9% DNA.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
Hey dipshit, did you read my link, it explains all the percentages you are so confused about in small enough words that you should be able to understand.

Nothing has changed since the genome was first sequenced in 2010, it has just been done more thoroughly and accurately since. We still share 99.7 % DNA with Neanderthals.


But you just said: "So the 2-4% of a non-African person's genome that is of Neanderthal origin will still be 99.7% similar to the matching stretch of DNA in an African person's genome. In terms of the whole genome, that is only 0.006% of actual difference!"

First you said that "...will still be 99.7% similar to the matching stretch of DNA in an African person's genome"
And then you said, "We still share 99.7 % DNA with Neanderthals.

Africans have no Neandertal DNA. So which is it?
Ojorf
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
But you just said: "So the 2-4% of a non-African person's genome that is of Neanderthal origin will still be 99.7% similar to the matching stretch of DNA in an African person's genome. In terms of the whole genome, that is only 0.006% of actual difference!"

First you said that "...will still be 99.7% similar to the matching stretch of DNA in an African person's genome"
And then you said, "We still share 99.7 % DNA with Neanderthals. Africans have no Neandertal DNA. So which is it?


No, no no. Oh dear...

Here it is again:
https://genetics....uropeans

Read it, understand it, it's not complicated.

Which part specifically are you so confused about?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
I see what it is - from your link. The percentages are seen within the CHROMOSOMES and there are certain "marks" on the chromosomes that determine/show what percentage of ancestry is seen, whether from non-African, African or Neandertal. But they all have the 99.7% in common.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2018
If you look at SEUs posting history you see a few initial posts a few years ago with him talking as if he had long prior experience with physorg commenters, then silence, then a spate of recent posts of a decidedly artificial, shallow, purposefully ignorant nature.

I can only surmise that this troll is a regular who has resurrected this sockpuppet for the purpose of trolling others because he has some grudge, or he's bored, or otherwise intent on disrupting and wasting peoples time.

So I wouldn't entertain him.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2018
Some were likely the children of captured Neandertal slaves
Ha slaves... what, to sweep out their caves and gather their firewood for them? Tribes obliterated, men slaughtered (and eaten), women incorporated. The way it's always been.

"So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan." Judges21:10-24 NLT

-Even god approves.
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018

https://gizmodo.c...19182225

According to the link above, the Neandertals gave us (from the ones found in Croatia) 1.8 - 2.6% Neandertal DNA. Nothing mentioned of your 98 - 99%.


Ok, since you're struggling, think of it like this - we're all mostly apes. The proportions we're talking about are in the range of the 2-3% of our DNA that separates us from chimps in the first place. If you look at that set of genes, we then have parts we share with the other human species. So this is all nuance in the final 1-2% of our genes that make us a new species.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2018
Neat explanation, lee. LOL apes huh
So, what you seem to be saying is that ALL humans, including all hominins who ever existed were descended from the ancestors of chimps, gorillas, and bonobos.
But could you explain why those chimps, gorillas and bonobos did not progress IN PARALLEL with humans, since all had descended from a common ancestry? Was there some type of prejudice against apes, or did they just fail to develop an opposing thumb? Lose their fur?

There must be a good reason for this lack of progressive evolution amongst apes, whereas their "cousins" the humans progressed so far. Was it brain size? If so, then why didn't the ape brain also grow in size as well as its skull?

And while you're at it, could you explain why this ghosty person is following my tail, so to speak, as though he/it has a personal interest in me for whatever reason. Or is this tgoO1923 person going about seeking friendship from total strangers who don't like him/it? It is too weird.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2018
So, what you seem to be saying is that ALL humans, including all hominins who ever existed were descended from the ancestors of chimps, gorillas, and bonobos.
But could you explain why those chimps, gorillas and bonobos did not progress IN PARALLEL with humans, since all had descended from a common ancestry? Was there some type of prejudice against apes, or did they just fail to develop an opposing thumb? Lose their fur?


You seem not to understand evolution very well. Why would chimps, or their ancestors, develop traits which would not be helpful in the environment in which they lived? We developed as we did due to finding ourselves outside of that environment. That environment, the African forests, was likely dwindling due to climatic effects. Something had to give, and we lost and had to leave! They stayed. Why wouldn't they?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
@ lee
I would like to see those links that ghosty says I was commenting in. I had posted some comments a few years ago which I don't recall what it was about. It would be interesting to read what I had said, as what is said on physorg - stays on physorg. That is why I have been reading the articles and comments from about 10 years worth, familiarising myself with the science and the personalities of those who just take up space, such as ghosty and Captain Stinky - and it has been eye-opening. LOL
The only reason I can think of as to the reason why tgoO1923 seems to be super-interested in me and what I say, is that I am a Creationist and quite intelligent (the only exception would be in the field of genetics, as I still maintain that man was created by God and did not evolve from apes. Ghosty may have retained the mind of an ape, since he/it just might be looking to be rewarded with a banana.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
I am a Creationist and quite intelligent


I think you just contradicted yourself! You can be one or the other - not both.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2018
So, what you seem to be saying is that ALL humans, including all hominins who ever existed were descended from the ancestors of chimps, gorillas, and bonobos.
But could you explain why those chimps, gorillas and bonobos did not progress IN PARALLEL with humans,(..)


You seem not to understand evolution very well. Why would chimps, or their ancestors, develop traits which would not be helpful in the environment in which they lived? We developed as we did due to finding ourselves outside of that environment. That environment, the African forests, was likely dwindling due to climatic effects. Something had to give, and we lost and had to leave! They stayed. Why wouldn't they?

says jonesy

"finding ourselves outside..."
But if humans left that environment, why wouldn't the apes leave also if their environment was changing for the worst? Or did it only change for humans and not apes, provided that both lived +/- side by side.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2018
I am a Creationist and quite intelligent


I think you just contradicted yourself! You can be one or the other - not both.


LOL touche'

You seem to be conflating Creationists with mindless religionists as though there were no difference. The main difference is that Creationists (like us) are aware of the validity of evolution amongst animals/plants. But man did not evolve from the slime as animals/plants did so long ago.
But we understand you Atheists and unbelievers who have decided that what you cannot see, doesn't exist - except, of course, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. But that's different.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
But we understand you Atheists and unbelievers who have decided that what you cannot see, doesn't exist - except, of course, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. But that's different.


Dark matter can be observed indirectly. However, that is neither here nor there. There is zero evidence for a creator. There is zero evidence that humans have been designed in some way. We share ~98% of our DNA with chimps. Slightly less with gorillas, slightly less than that with orangs, etc, etc. Was this unprovable creator a lazy bugger who based his/ her ultimate design on 98% chimp? And 50% banana? You'd think the lazy sod would leave a clue in the genome that would jump out and scream, "this is designed, it was me that done it!"
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2018
No. It didn't work that way as you described.
Matter of fact, jonesy - it IS possible to SEE the Creator. I have seen Him, but not as you would expect. It was a sudden appearance. I spoke, and when He began to leave, I felt a strange sadness and called Him my friend. And no, I was not hallucinating.
Best experience I ever had in my life. There's more, but it is too complex to reveal.
God the Creator designed the first man from the clay which retained the DNA from passing animals. This is the reason why humans share DNA with apes and others. And why apes did not evolve along with man.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
God the Creator designed the first man from the clay which retained the DNA from passing animals. This is the reason why humans share DNA with apes and others. And why apes did not evolve along with man.


Well, if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. Those are not the sort of things one would expect a rational, let alone intelligent, person to believe. And it sure as hell isn't science. So, why are you here?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
I was a skeptic like you, once. But then I started noticing many differences that I could not explain. But jonesy - if you feel a strong desire to remain a skeptic, then more power to you.
Just be good, kind, fair, and honest. That might help you in the end.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
jonesy, you've got to understand that I am definitely NOT trying to convert you to my thinking/belief. You're a big boy now and have your own mind, and you will do as you see fit. We are worlds apart, but I think I see goodness in you - just a tad, but it's there.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
God the Creator designed the first man from the clay which retained the DNA from passing animals.


And bananas! Don't forget them. I guess the chimps must have taken a dump on this clay, having eaten bananas for lunch! Yuk.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
God the Creator designed the first man from the clay which retained the DNA from passing animals. This is the reason why humans share DNA with apes and others.


Well, if you believe that, I've got a bridge to..Those are not the sort of things one would expect a rational, let alone intelligent, person to believe. And it sure as hell isn't science. So, why are you here?



I am here for the science, which seems to be almost constantly changing, as it well should. The textbooks are becoming outdated - often quickly. If you don't change with the science, you are left behind and clueless.

jonesy, life is very short, in the scheme of nature, the Universe, and Time. What you know to be true now, will surely be changed in some years to come. But, your choices are yours and nobody should try to change you. After all, the fires of hell/Sheol will always be there.
BTW, did you know that there is NO sex in Heaven...none at all. Sex is only for creatures, not Angels
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2018
@eggy
Matter of fact, jonesy - it IS possible to SEE the Creator. I have seen Him
how do you tell the difference between the creator you claim to have seen and those who have tumours or mental illness and their manifestations?

you can't go by "feeling"
you can't use the argument that "it's more than real" or something similar
you can't even provide any evidence other than your word it happened

therein lies the problem

we *know* that mentally ill people are really experiencing voices, or visions, or similar delusions, or manifestations of [insert whatever here], but that doesn't mean it's real

in point of fact, it really doesn't mean it's real for them, it only means they believe it to be real because their sensory interpretations are flawed by the brain, etc

so how can anyone make a determination that your vision is real?

PROTIP - ya can't
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2018
God the Creator designed the first man from the clay which retained the DNA from passing animals.


And bananas! Don't forget them. I guess the chimps must have taken a dump on this clay, having eaten bananas for lunch! Yuk.


Yes - and out popped theghostyofotto1923 from the bananas eaten by chimps. And they exclaimed when they saw him, "oh no, another ape".
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2018
@eggy
the fires of hell/Sheol will always be there
how do you know? been there?
that is your religion, not everyone's religion

how do you know your religion is the right one?
you only experience it because of the culture you were born into - so had you been born into a Buddhist culture, would you still go to hell?
BTW, did you know that there is NO sex in Heaven...none at all. Sex is only for creatures, not Angels
so, you've been there too?
Huh...

what would be the point of going there then?
the fried chicken?

PS - my FSM is more powerful than your deity
It can predict your downvoting my posts and your religious nonsense regurgitated all over this site in multiple socks

PPS - Oh look! you downrated my post!
how about that... chock one up for the FSM
your god is still sitting at goose-egg zero
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
jonesy - you already are aware that poop contains skin cells from the digestive system, and those cells contain DNA/chromosomes. Whether animals pooped into clay or the cells rubbed off their skin, the DNA was right there in the clay from where it had dropped. Every time you scratch your arm, you are rubbing off a few skin cells that fall off - unless you are of the type who likes to keep them. LOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
LOL I always downvote Captain Stinky's posts. Stinky never offers any scientific knowledge of his own - at the drop of a hat, so to speak. But wiki and the Search engine is there for those who have no personal clue/knowledge of science otherwise.

At least jonesy knows what he is talking about re science, and can rattle it off without looking it up first.
leetennant
5 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2018
Surveillance - if you're having visual and auditory hallucinations you should maybe get that looked at.
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2018
BTW, did you know that there is NO sex in Heaven...none at all. Sex is only for creatures, not Angels


I have seen Him, but not as you would expect. It was a sudden appearance. I spoke, and when He began to leave, I felt a strange sadness and called Him my friend.


Him? He?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2018
The only reason I can think of as to the reason why tgoO1923 seems to be super-interested in me and what I say, is that I am a Creationist and quite intelligent (the only exception would be in the field of genetics, as I still maintain that man was created by God and did not evolve from apes
-Naw I just hate lying trolls and similar scum.
Ghosty may have retained the mind of an ape, since he/it just might be looking to be rewarded with a banana
-I suppose the person previously known as pussycat eyes, obamasocks, pirouette et al has been lurking around here all along as a more or less legitimate poster who occasionally dons her bat-jammies when she's feeling sufficiently righteous.

Because trouble is her middle name yes?

What say stumpy? You think this 'quite intelligent' retard is another suckpuppet in kind?
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2018
What say stumpy? You think this 'quite intelligent' retard is another suckpuppet in kind?
Definitely a sock, and has a lot of similarities to Obama-et al

Seems to be a trend using clay, cells and DNA
check out the mental loops above and here: https://phys.org/...tor.html
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2018
Oh,...I thought this was another article about Trump.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2018
Surveillance - if you're having visual and auditory hallucinations you should maybe get that looked at.
says lee

I have been voluntarily examined, both physically and mentally and have been found to be perfectly lucid, without any neuronal anomalies.
IOW, the results of every test that I have undergone showed that I have no sign of disease or madness. I have been told that all my tests indicate that I am perfectly normal, as humans go.

I have certain abilities that seem to be not found in the general populations, although I have recognised several humans who displayed those certain abilities. I won't elaborate as to these abilities, but I enjoy them and hope to continue enjoying them throughout my existence in this physical body.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2018
What say stumpy? You think this 'quite intelligent' retard is another suckpuppet in kind?
Definitely a sock, and has a lot of similarities to Obama-et al

Seems to be a trend using clay, cells and DNA
check out the mental loops above and here: https://phys.org/...tor.html
Captain Stinky

I clicked on that link and did not find my name anywhere in that forum. This is a clear indication that Captain Stinky is a LIAR and is obsessive-compulsive amongst other mental disorders, as is thegrossofotto1923.
I look forward to their stepping in their own sh*t on a daily basis. LOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2018
BTW, did you know that there is NO sex in Heaven...none at all. Sex is only for creatures, not Angels


I have seen Him, but not as you would expect. It was a sudden appearance. I spoke, and when He began to leave, I felt a strange sadness and called Him my friend.


Him? He?
says SteveS

Yes, Steve. The nomenclature in English is adequate. Even in Hebrew I believe that God is also referred to in the masculine - certainly NOT in the feminine.

HE has returned here on Earth from His travels around His Universe. And I doubt that God the Creator is pleased with what his human creation has been doing.

The war is coming soon, SteveS, but it is not the war that you envision between nations, although that may happen first.

SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2018
Yes, Steve. The nomenclature in English is adequate.

So what's the purpose of gender in deities, unless they were created in Our image?

Even in Hebrew I believe that God is also referred to in the masculine

Which you would expect from a story created by a patriarchal society.

certainly NOT in the feminine.

Why the capitals, some may see that as denigrating women?

HE has returned here on Earth from His travels around His Universe.

How does a omnipresent being travel, it's already everywhere? Do you think you may be projecting your own limitations on your chosen deity?

The war is coming soon, SteveS, but it is not the war that you envision between nations

Is the power to know what other people envision one of your "certain abilities"?

btw I know this post is off topic and that I've criticised you in the past for your irrelevant comments, but I thought wtf I'd give you one last chance before adding you to my ignore list.
humy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2018
I am quite confused wrt the most ancient ancestry of Neandertal's genesis in Europe. We are told that Homo Sapiens who are non-Africans have ~2% Neandertal DNA. And yet, Palaeoanthropologists have claimed that ALL hominids came from/originated in Africa.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

If I remember the theory on this correctly (but I might be wrong);
First neandertals evolved from African ancestors.
THEN humans evolved from African ancestors (so the first humans had NO genes particular to neandertals).
Only THEN, i.e. some time LATER, did some neandertals and humans interbreed.
So the original humans had no genes particular to neandertals but modern humans do have genes particular to neandertals because of that later interbreeding.

Will a REAL expert on this please correct me if I got any of the above wrong, thanks.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2018
Yes, Steve. The nomenclature in English is adequate.

So what's the purpose of gender in deities, unless they were created in Our image?

Even in Hebrew I believe that God is also referred to in the masculine

Which you would expect from a story created by a patriarchal society.

certainly NOT

Why the capitals, some may see that as denigrating women?

HE has returned here on Earth from His travels around His Universe.

How does a omnipresent being travel, it's already everywhere? Do you think you may be projecting...

The war is coming soon, SteveS, but it is not the war that you envision between nations

Is the power to know what other people envision one of your "certain abilities"?,,,adding you to my ignore list.
says SteveS

Capital letters seen as denigrating women, Steve? Really? You seem to be a sexist - reverse sexism against the male of the species, is still sexist.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@ SteveS
Your apparent reverse sexism against the male of the human species offends me. I had intended to answer your questions that you put forth, but since you choose to place me on your ignore list anyway, I cannot imagine why you waited so long to do it. I will also place YOU on MY ignore list.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2018
I am quite confused wrt the most ancient ancestry of Neandertal's genesis in Europe. We are told that Homo Sapiens who are non-Africans have ~2% Neandertal DNA. And yet, Palaeoanthropologists have claimed that ALL hominids came from/originated in Africa.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

If I remember the theory on this correctly (but I might be wrong);
First neandertals evolved from African ancestors.
THEN humans evolved from African ancestors (so the first humans had NO genes particular to neandertals).
Only THEN, i.e. some time LATER, did some neandertals and humans interbreed.
So the original humans had no genes particular to neandertals but modern humans do have genes particular to neandertals because of that later interbreeding.

Will a REAL expert on this please correct me if I got any of the above wrong, thanks.

says humy

To quote my American friends - Humy, you are using your noodle!!!

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@ humy
That would make it so that Neandertals, Africans (including sub-Saharan) and ancient and modern homo sapiens, and Denisovans plus H.ergaster and H.erectus, H.horribilis and the hobbits, etc. etc. all are cousins under the skin, etc. And all are from the African continent. If that is the case, then ALL should have the same DNA, no matter the timeline of when each group left Africa. It should also mean that Neandertals and Sapiens had already the same DNA when they came together, otherwise how could they have had children together with different DNA? Chimps and humans cannot have children together despite DNA.
Now THAT part, I am not certain of - since the African continent was a part of Gonwanda when all the land masses were together. Only more recently is Africa rifting apart from the Near East. There is also the matter of the Saudi peninsula once having been with lush growth vegetation long before the deserts formed and oil extracted from that vegetation.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2018


https://www.smith...0967952/

https://www.haare....5764061

These are 2 out of 10 stories from the first page. They are basically alike, but the second has more photos.

"Out of Africa" should be "Out of Gondwana", since there was no Africa at the time, and the only reason for the first designation is due to the bones of hominins H.ergaster and H.erectus found in Africa. If and when the paleoanthropologists have found ancient H.Sapiens' bones in Africa, then will I acknowledge that the modern Africa is our ancient homeland.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2018
If and when the paleoanthropologists have found ancient H.Sapiens' bones in Africa, then will I acknowledge that the modern Africa is our ancient homeland.

Acknowledge away: https://www.thegu...an-story

As for Gondwana, that broke up millions of years ago. Continents only move ~1 inch/year, so Africa's only move a few miles in the last 300000 years. Africa was aleady around then.
leetennant
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@ humy
That would make it so that Neandertals, Africans (including sub-Saharan) and ancient and modern homo sapiens, and Denisovans plus H.ergaster and H.erectus, H.horribilis and the hobbits, etc. etc. all are cousins under the skin, etc. And all are from the African continent. If that is the case, then ALL should have the same DNA, no matter the timeline of when each group left Africa.


This is the problem with attempting discourse with a theist. When they run out of goalposts to shift, they simply circle round to the beginning. It's always all turtles, all the way down and no matter how much wading you do, there are always more turtles.

For the final time, Surveillance, we are cousins. WE DO HAVE THE SAME DNA. Almost all of it. 98-99% of it. That's what makes us all humans.

PS - there's no such things as "reverse sexism" and you insult the lived experience of billions of women implying there is.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2018
@idiot eggy/obama_socks et al
@ SteveS
Your apparent reverse sexism against the male of the human species...
first off, Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender
period

Secondly, if you "reverse" sexism then you get no discrimination or prejudice
learn to read ( http://www.readingbear.org )
I had intended to answer your questions that you put forth...
not bloody likely
you have a trend of not only not answering, but when you "do answer" it usually is irrelevant BS, insensible circumlocution and redundant pleonastic logorrheic prolix
If and when the paleoanthropologists have found ancient H.Sapiens' bones in Africa, then will I acknowledge that the modern Africa is our ancient homeland
well?
as zz5555 noted: Acknowledge away
humy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2018
That would make it so that Neandertals, Africans (including sub-Saharan) and ancient and modern homo sapiens, and Denisovans plus H.ergaster and H.erectus, H.horribilis and the hobbits, etc. etc. all are cousins under the skin, etc. And all are from the African continent. If that is the case, then ALL should have the same DNA,
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Why would it mean the All would have all the SAME DNA? (is that what you are REALLY saying? Clarify) As each evolves its separate ways (for a time), each will accumulate mutations that are unique to that species only. It wouldn't make any sense to say they could have all the SAME DNA because if all the same DNA then they would all be the SAME species!
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2018
Capital letters seen as denigrating women, Steve? Really? You seem to be a sexist - reverse sexism against the male of the species, is still sexist

Pop quiz, which of these statements is more likely to be perceived as denigrating?

certainly not in the feminine

certainly NOT in the feminine

Suggesting that somebody is sexist is not sexism.

I had intended to answer your questions that you put forth, but.....

Shame, I was looking forward to hearing how a omnipresent being can go on holiday when it already has it's feet up sipping margaritas on every beach in the universe.

I will also place YOU on MY ignore list.

Way to squander your last chance.
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2018
-CONTINUED-

On a more crass note, your earlier non sequitur

BTW, did you know that there is NO sex in Heaven...none at all. Sex is only for creatures, not Angels

and your obvious sensitivity on gender issues

Your apparent reverse sexism against the male of the human species offends me

would suggest that your not getting any.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@ humy
That would make it so that Neandertals, Africans (including sub-Saharan) and ancient and modern homo sapiens, and Denisovans plus H.ergaster and H.erectus, H.horribilis and the hobbits, etc. etc. all are cousins under the skin, etc. And all are from the African continent. If that is the case, then ALL should have the same DNA, no matter the timeline of when each group left Africa.


For the final time, Surveillance, we are cousins. WE DO HAVE THE SAME DNA. Almost all of it. 98-99% of it. That's what makes us all humans.

PS - there's no such things as "reverse sexism" and you insult the lived experience of billions of women implying there is.
says lee

I have already said that we are all cousins, lee. And the 1.8 - 2.6% from Neandertal is irrelevant in comparison to the largest 99.7.
Re reverse sexism - of course it exists. There are American women who have raped teenage boys; some have accused innocent men of sexual molestation, etc.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@ lee
I have lived in the US these past 11 years and I must say that the mainstream media (and others) have had no problem in reporting that some women are sexists in their relationship with men, whether in the workplace, school, and even in entertainment. Do you read, hear and watch the news? Or do you close your eyes and cover your ears when such sexist accusations are being mentioned? In the US there are now racist, as well as sexist behaviours amongst some women toward White males.

Oh wait - I forgot that you are not American. Dreadfully sorry about that.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2018
@ lee
What is your beef against Theists? Do you practise discrimination against others also? Or is it just Creationists that you abhor? I would have expected much better from you.

And what is that damn fool Captain Stinky going on about. I have read many of Stinky's posts more recently to catch up with what has been going on in this website the last 10 years and it is quite ugly. I think the mental patients have escaped out of the asylum and now, like Stinky Stumpy and thegrossofotto1923, are making stupid and idiotic comments in physorg so that real scientists/researchers will become fed up and leave permanently.. Some have already left in disgust at the uncivilized nature of those certain ones who are apparently demonically-possessed, such as Stinky and his water-bucket boy, thegrossofotto. I have been reading their slimy vicious comments against such as RealityCheck, Benni, cantdrive and many others by the primary violators of the physorg T.O.S.
Truly pitiful.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2018
For the final time, Surveillance, we are cousins. WE DO HAVE THE SAME DNA. Almost all of it. 98-99% of it. That's what makes us all humans.

Well, we also share around 50% of our DNA with bananas. The amount of DNA similarity doesn't define humans as a species - the ability to interbreed does.
(Though I think there are no shortage of internet sites that will show humans trying to interbreed with bananas. Go figure.)

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2018
That would make it so that Neandertals, Africans (including sub-Saharan) and ancient and modern homo sapiens, and Denisovans plus H.ergaster and H.erectus, H.horribilis and the hobbits, etc. etc. all are cousins under the skin, etc. And all are from the African continent. If that is the case, then ALL should have the same DNA,
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Why would it mean the All would have all the SAME DNA? (..) As each evolves its separate ways (for a time), each will accumulate mutations that are unique to that species only. It wouldn't make any sense to say they could have all the SAME DNA because if all the same DNA then they would all be the SAME species!
says humy

Why bother with such piddling changes such as mutations in referring to any part of the Homo species? Even with certain inherited diseases like sickle cell anemia, for example.
Indeed, humans are all the same - and from basically the same stock. Isn't that right?
Nothing special. Meh
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2018
@illiterate eggy
Re reverse sexism - of course it exists
no, it doesn't

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender, and as such falls under discrimination (and potentially defamation) laws

"reverse" sexism is a colloquial term that has no real meaning except to the illiterate or *fanatical* seeking to validate their belief
There are American women who have raped teenage boys
that is not sexism: that is a sex crime (and felonious)
big f*cking difference, too
https://definitio.../r/rape/

https://thelawdic...rg/rape/

https://thelawdic...assault/

And what is...going on about
are you admitting you can't read?
thanks for the validation...
Some have already left in disgust
because of people like gran

You've made blatantly false claims above that are based upon your religious or delusional beliefs
proven by links, references and your own words

next rant?
humy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2018

Why bother with such piddling changes such as mutations in referring to any part of the Homo species?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

I wasn't talking about "piddling changes" but mutations for new genes that make the difference, such as genes for important brain structures etc that adapt to aid survival and/or reproduction, between one Homo species and another. If there were no such genetic differences then all the hominid species would be the same species.
I don't get at all what you are saying; are you saying we and Neandertals are exactly the SAME species?
The definition of species isn't just to do with ability to interbreed but is more complex than that.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2018
@humy
The Homo specie IS all one specie. The differences that you see in Neandertals as opposed to Sapiens IS only due to adaptations to specific environmental (such as climate changes) situations of whatever sort, that eventually showed up in the chromosomes, causing changes in physical appearance, traits, dietary needs, immunity or lack thereof to diseases, amongst many other things. Evolution of one group of a specie does not mean that it is no longer a member of the group from which it emerged originally. Appearance, traits, etc. are due to the chemical changes at a cellular level that happen over time that is most often helpful to the survival of the specie.

eg - All dogs are of one specie - Canine - but they have been bred (often by professional breeders) to have changes in size, appearance, color, ability to adapt, attention to commands, etc. Dogs have descended from wolves, but essentially, dogs and wolves are the same specie.

Same with humans.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2018
@humy

Mutations for new genes only occur "as needed", given the situation(s) over a period of time. Evolution was programmed into cells to effect such changes for survival of the fittest. A bigger brain and skull was required by the Homo specie that succeeded its predecessors in order to survive against the odds, which is why ergaster, horribilis, erectus, etc. were failed hominids since they could not evolve sufficiently.
Therefore, any differences between groups of Homo specie only occurred on an "as needed" basis. Such differences have no bearing on the fact that ALL Homo hominin groups, including Neandertal and Sapiens are the same genetically, thereby making them all One.
The tendency is to think that Neandertalensis was of a different specie due to the Paleoanthro scientists not placing the word, "Homo" out in front. But, like in the Canine specie, all are the same with no truly major differences like having 8 legs or a different breathing apparatus.
humy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2018
@humy
The Homo specie IS all one specie. The differences that you see in Neandertals as opposed to Sapiens IS only due to adaptations to specific environmental (such as climate changes) situations of whatever sort, that eventually showed up in the chromosomes, causing changes in physical appearance, traits, dietary needs, immunity or lack thereof to diseases, amongst many other things.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

The differences between us and gorillas and dogs are ALSO;

"only due to adaptations to specific environmental (such as climate changes) situations of whatever sort, that eventually showed up in the chromosomes, causing changes in physical appearance, traits, dietary needs, immunity or lack thereof to diseases, amongst many other things."

Thus, using your same 'logic', we humans are the same species as gorillas and dogs.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2018
@humy
The Homo specie IS all one specie. The differences that you see in Neandertals as opposed to Sapiens IS only due to adaptations to specific environmental (such as climate changes) situations of whatever sort, that eventually showed up in the chromosomes, causing changes in physical appearance, traits, dietary needs, immunity or lack thereof to diseases, amongst many other things.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

The differences between us and gorillas and dogs are ALSO;

"only due to adaptations to specific environmental (such as climate changes) situations of whatever sort, that eventually showed up in the chromosomes, causing changes in physical appearance, traits, dietary needs, immunity or lack thereof to diseases, amongst many other things."

Thus, using your same 'logic', we humans are the same species as gorillas and dogs.


Are you saying that gorillas and dogs are part of the Homo specie? I'm sure that scientists were not aware of that.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2018
-CONTINUED-
Are you REALLY saying that gorillas and dogs are part of the Homo specie? That certainly was not MY logic, but YOU seem to be trying to conflate the idea that all animals are of the same specie because I said that all HOMO animals are of one specie -- HOMO - whether they were Sapiens, Neandertal, ergaster, erectus, and Denisovans. ALL are labeled/catalogued as HOMO specie. Homo Sapiens, being able to mate with Neandertals make Neandertals also Homo. Neandertalensis is named after the Neander region of Germany where the bones were found.
I really have no clue as to WHY you would say such a ****** thing as you did. You must have realised by now that Homo is a separate specie from all other species.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2018
Wolves, dogs, coyotes and jackals are one specie - Canine or Canis
Gorilla is a Primate - of the Hominidae family
Chimps and bonobos, although closely related genetically to humans - are Primates
Cats are also related genetically to humans, canines, and primates - but are of a separate specie - Feline or Felidae.
Bananas/banana trees are also related genetically to humans, canines, felines, primates and other species. A Homo banana is not currently possible, humy.
humy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2018

Are you saying that gorillas and dogs are part of the Homo species?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

No. I am saying they aren't but, according to your logic, they are because you said Neandertals and us are the same species because we are only different because;

"only due to adaptations to specific environmental (such as climate changes) situations of whatever sort, that eventually showed up in the chromosomes, causing changes in physical appearance, traits, dietary needs, immunity or lack thereof to diseases, amongst many other things." (your quote)

and I merely pointed out if the above is why we are the same species as Neandertals then, since the above is equally true for the differences between us and dogs etc, according to your same flawed above logic, we must also be the same species as dogs!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2018
You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting what I have said, humy. I never said that humans are the same species as dogs, cats, gorillas, goats or bananas.
You also seem to be equating Neandertals with Canines and other animals for some strange reason even though I have said multiple times that Neandertals are within the HOMO SPECIE, along with Sapiens and all others designated as HOMO. And yes, the ONLY difference between human and Neandertal IS the adaptations that Neandertals took on, resulting in changes in appearance, etc.

I can't make it any plainer. If you choose/prefer to regard yourself as the same specie as dogs, I have no problem with it.

Perhaps you should take my statements to a professional geneticist who may understand what I have said much better than you are able to.
If you STILL cannot understand even when a professional explains it to you, then I would suggest that you see a Neurologist who may be able to help you.

This is my final post in this forum.
Shootist
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2018
I still find it hard to believe that such a rare individual happens to turn into such a rare fossil.


which, probably, tells you it wasn't so rare
barakn
1 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2018
I have said multiple times that Neandertals are within the HOMO SPECIE, along with Sapiens and all others designated as HOMO. -SEU
Homo is a genus, not a species.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
5 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2018
That is correct, barakn

According to Wiki: Homo | ˈhōmō |
noun
the genus of primates of which modern humans (Homo sapiens) are the present-day representatives.
• [with Latin or pseudo-Latin modifier] denoting kinds of modern human, often humorously: a textbook example of Homo neuroticus.
The genus Homo is believed to have existed for at least two million years, and modern humans (H. sapiens sapiens) first appeared in the Upper Paleolithic. Among several extinct species are H. habilis, H. erectus, and H. neanderthalensis.

And it appears that I was also correct about both Neandertals and Sapiens being members of the same genus. . .not specie. Perhaps humans are in the Primate specie along with gorillas.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
5 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2018
Thank you, barakn.

Yes. Humans are also Primates --

primate2 | ˈprīˌmāt |
noun Zoology
a mammal of an order that includes the lemurs, bushbabies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans. They are distinguished by having hands, handlike feet, and forward-facing eyes, and, with the exception of humans, are typically agile tree-dwellers.
Order Primates: several families.

Oh how the mighty have fallen. We will now have to look upon lemurs and bushbabies as our relatives.
:/

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.