Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I haven't a clue whether I found the article you were referring to and you seemingly are too lazy to try it yourself and find out.

But what I did find was many articles on the subject. None of which you, it appears, have any interest in reading.

Sad!


DA Morgan
.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Here are some sites that sum up evidence for hybrids between Neanderthal and modern human. The first three are arguments, sometimes nasty, the last two are articles. Most have links to other sites.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hybrid.htm

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199906/0279.html

This one contains remarks by a multi-regional supporter, Erik Trinkaus. Here is a reply to it, rather anti.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199906/0346.html

The reply doesn?t touch on remarks Ian Tattersall makes in his book. You can see from the original posting of this subject that he is a firm believer in the inherent superiority of us modern humans. I presume this superiority justifies the virtual extermination of humans with less advanced technology that has happened during the last few hundred years.
And another from a different source:

http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-02/departments/featworks

A last one.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s23000.htm

The original article shows that the evolution of h. erectus imvolved hybridizing. We know it occurrs in modern times. Surely it's reasonable to suppose it happened during the evolution of modern Europeans.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
The most recent item I read was that there was no evidence of interbreeding or genocide. But my suspicion is that this is just wishful thinking.


DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
dannysmyname, I've finally found the article on speciation between humans and chimps. It's:

http://www.haverford.edu/KINSC/06Journal/nature04789.pdf#search=%22genetic%20evidence%20for%20complex%20speciation%20of%20humans%20and%20chimpanzees%22

How's that for a long one? Seems that particular speciation event involved several periods of separation followed by hybridization. I suspect all human species from H. erectus on have been capable of breeding together, ie all one species. It's just that we humans like to believe we are special, much different to those species that show connections to apes. The gradualness of our evolution has been downplayed. There must be some sudden change that means we're superior to mere animals.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Wow. That is a find.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:
dannysmyname, I've finally found the article on speciation between humans and chimps. It's:

http://www.haverford.edu/KINSC/06Journal/nature04789.pdf#search=%22genetic%20evidence%20for%20complex%20speciation%20of%20humans%20and%20chimpanzees%22

How's that for a long one? Seems that particular speciation event involved several periods of separation followed by hybridization. I suspect all human species from H. erectus on have been capable of breeding together, ie all one species. It's just that we humans like to believe we are special, much different to those species that show connections to apes. The gradualness of our evolution has been downplayed. There must be some sudden change that means we're superior to mere animals.
There must have been a SUDDEN change?
You mean from Apes to Man? Impossible
But you are trying hard, Terry, or is it Danny?
Let me show you some facts. Which taken together are difficult to reconcile.

A few of you may remember me talking about my personal theory, which I first proposed some years ago.
Lets just forget about Race and Religion for a moment. And just talk about Color. The undisputable separate colours of mankind.

Lets name them:- WHITE, BLACK, BROWN, YELLOW, RED. LIGHT BROWN and ABORIGINE (aborigines are not Negro)
Thats it, thats all, ...those colors are fact!
Now imagine, can you, that the Aeroplane or Boat had never ever been invented!!
Then to this day those Seven different Colors of Man would still be living in their OWN CONTINENTS!!
What I hear you say?
Yes thats right...The SEVEN colors of MAN would only be FOUND in their own, SEVEN Continents
Thats SEVEN Colors and SEVEN Continents!
Dont you find that a VERY strange coincidence?

Lets list them out.
Whites in Europe
Browns in India
Reds in N America
Blacks in Africa
Yellows in China
Light Browns in S America
Aborigines (color) in Australia

Now they could hardly get there by foot, could they? Cross the Alps, cross the Ghobi desert etc. And change color along the way, could they? That would take a hundred thousand years each color
would'nt it? What about purity of color?

Mans continental colors are pure,(or were) They could hardly have gone on foot, and if thay had procreated along the way. Where are those occasional 'throwbacks'. The occasional white or
black, or odd colored baby that would spring up due to procreation of color mixing, all in according to the present laws of Genetics, I might add. The odd color that should be thropwn up even back in the 14 or 15th century when there was little or no mixing?

Since each of the Continents are virtually inaccessible from any other, by foot. It was always my contention that, (but for the invention of the boat and aeroplane) that each colour/race of man has been locked into his own Continent for tens of thousands of years.
Which of course pre-supposes that we could hardly migrate out of Africa, and populate the other six Continents, in view of the mobility difficulty of
achieving this, together with physiological and skin color changes, plus interbreeding, that supposedly went hand in hand with this (unproven) world migration. While keeping all within the accepted time limitations of the H. erectus and H. sapiens discoverys to date, ie.-that the 'Out of Africa migration' started about 100,000 years ago.
The above constitutes the nub of my theory, which I have always considered to be obviously self evident....without the proof.
But interesting nevertheless.
Remember that 'Out of Africa' proponents by splitting Homo specimens into erectus and sapiens, slam the door on interbreeding. Since a species is defined as a group that is reproductively separate. That should hold for 'out of anywhere', (which ever archaic hominins are said to be involved) I feel.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
sorry mike. My comment "there must have been some sudden change" was paraphrasing how biblically oriented people view evolution. In fact the article on the separation between chimps and humans suggests this took nearly four million years, hardly a sudden change. Therefore I agree totally with your comment above. The only minor disagreement I have would be that there are probably only five separate regional variations of humans. It's hardly an important disagreement. If you look at my previous postings on the subject you will see that I believe the biblical perspective has influenced the ready acceptance of the out of Africa theory. They believe there must have been a sudden leap at some time.

I actually reckon the white skin and blond hair of many Europeans goes back to Neanderthals. After all they lived for 200,000 years in a region of winter snow and they are not the only creature to change from white to brown with the seasons.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:
...........................................>
I actually reckon the white skin and blond hair of many Europeans goes back to Neanderthals. After all they lived for 200,000 years in a region of winter snow and they are not the only creature to change from white to brown with the seasons.
Yes, there are some strange disparities not only amongst the animal kingdom but in humans as well.
Animals that live in the cold Artic regions are well protedted with either blubber, or prehaps two distinct layers of thick hair (polar bears)
You might have expected humans to have developed a lot of body hair, after living for thousands of years in Artic conditions? Yet Eskimoes, are almost devoid of body, and facial hair.
Ever seen an Eskimoe with a beard? And they are dark skinned not white. confused


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
"Thats SEVEN Colors and SEVEN Continents!
Dont you find that a VERY strange coincidence?"

No.

"Lets list them out.
Whites in Europe
Browns in India
Reds in N America
Blacks in Africa
Yellows in China
Light Browns in S America
Aborigines (color) in Australia"

India and China are not continents. They're on the same continent. A continent that they share with *whites*. Aren't the *light browns* in S. America essentially the same color as the *reds* in N. America?

Why would you find it a strange coincidence that there are differences among geographically isolated peoples?


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
I do not feel that this article disproves the theory of evolution, nor supports it.
The existence of any variant humanoids does support evolution theory, in my opinion.

The discovery of human remains, as we are today, dating from 500,000 yrs ago would discredit the theory of evolution for me

What I haven't noticed so far is an alternative theory.

If we didn't evolve from apes (with which we share so much DNA), then where did we come from?


"The written word is a lie"
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I agree that the seven number is arbitrary. Seven continents? From my perspective North and Soth America are the same continent. Well they have been for the last few million years.

The people of China and India obviously are a little different to each other. They must have at least some different genes. As I said previously we can divide humanity into five groups, the rest seem to be hybrids between these five. Genetic evidence shows Polynesians for a start are a hybrid between Northeast Asians and Australian Aborigines/Papuans. I'll post a reference when I find it again. The five groups are at the geographic extremities of the H. erectus distribution. The original article shows that today the human population has genes that originate in different places.

As to Neanderthals being either hairy or blubbery, how do we know they weren't? They could still have been part of modern Europeans' ancestry.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
p.s.Here is the reference:

Underhill et al (2001) Y-Chromosome Haplotypes and Implications for Human History in the Pacific. Human Mutation 17: 271-280.
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HM...e%20pacifi c%22

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
Originally posted by soilguy:
"Thats SEVEN Colors and SEVEN Continents!
Dont you find that a VERY strange coincidence?"

No.


India and China are not continents. They're on the same continent. A continent that they share with *whites*. Aren't the *light browns* in S. America essentially the same color as the *reds* in N. America?

Why would you find it a strange coincidence that there are differences among geographically isolated peoples?
I find it a strange co-incidence in the particular case of color separation, in respect of the original article I posted "Out of Africa NOT".
Further more, the concensus of opinions today regarding the 'spread' of Evolution, aka: Darwinianism contend, that mans colour changes
(meaning:- a genetic color change) occured while Man was spreading and populating the world.

That the different colours of Man equate to a difference in Genetic makeup.

You could not wander (walk)...ie. populate the Continents, without leaving genetic markers of copulation, within the peoples. Meaning mans seven skin colours, are, and cetainly were pure in the recent past. No throwback of a mixed racial types. I could have included basic hair types PLUS color, but chose not to. Its a simple visual exercise, that everyone can understand, and have thoughts about. It works even if we go back to a single Gwondala/Pangean world land mass (theoretically more color mixing) Or just accept the present distribution of Continents.
India and China plus North and South America, I agree are not true continents. But for this argument are distinct land masses, which in my view, were impossible enter and populate, and change colour,......as Darwinians suggest.
The difficulties being the Ghobi desert of China the Himalayas , India. In addition, the Panama Isthmus, although joining N and S America might prove a difficult thoroughfare to negotiate, (No horses or monkeys evolved in the Americas) And anyway I dont think there was any particular reason as to why Red man or Light brown man would move away from their areas, they had all the food, lush vegetation or Bison they could eat.
That they didnt move and mix is proven again by the purity of Redskin and Light Brown, plus the additional fact that Red man is hairless.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Mike, are you saying the various races, or colours, of humans have been on each separate continent since Gondwanaland broke up? We've been around for more than sixty five million years? Extremely unlikely.

Also don't forget that most deserts in the world have been much moister at times. As your original posting says, no problem for even H. erectus to move through the Gobi Desert at times. The article suggests that human movement has been going on much longer and at a greater level than we currently think.

There are many genetic markers of migrating populations besides the ones mentioned in your original posting. Regarding American Indians not being a hybrid population try this site:

Karafet et al (1999) Ancestral Asian Source(s) of New World Y-chromosome Founder Haplotypes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 64: 817-831.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/jo...6940161261Guest

Y-chromosome from Central Asia, Mitochondrial DNA from further south: Mongolia, Tibet China and Korea.

Re horses and monkeys. It's my understanding that horses actually evolved in North America, moved out from about three million years ago and then were exterminated in North America by the ancestors of the American Indians. Monkeys seem to have become isolated in South America when that continent split from Africa near the end of the Cretaceous.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Terryt,
I got an operation not permitted error. Do you have another link you could post? Thanks.

Amaranth

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
When I type in "ancestral asian source(s) of new world y-chromosome haplotypes" it seems to work. It's the first site that comes up on google. I've copied the site over. see if it works. It's a ddf file. shouldn't make a difference though.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/jo...5583036053Guest

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
It worked alright that time. Of course it's not a ddf file. silly me. pdf.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I tried this morning and it didn't work again. I found this. Same article:
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Karafet_et_al.1999.pdf

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:
Mike, are you saying the various races, or colours, of humans have been on each separate continent since Gondwanaland broke up? We've been around for more than sixty five million years? Extremely unlikely.

There are many genetic markers of migrating populations besides the ones mentioned in your original posting. Regarding American Indians not being a hybrid population try this site:

Karafet et al (1999) Ancestral Asian Source(s) of New World Y-chromosome Founder Haplotypes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 64: 817-831.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/jo...6940161261Guest

Y-chromosome from Central Asia, Mitochondrial DNA from further south: Mongolia, Tibet China and Korea.

Re horses: It's my understanding that horses actually evolved in North America, moved out from about three million years ago and then were exterminated in North America by the ancestors of the American Indians. Monkeys seem to have become isolated in South America when that continent split from Africa near the end of the Cretaceous.
Re Gondwalaland, I tried to imply that HAD man been around at that time, we would almost certainly be very mixed by now.

I think it will ultimately be found that H.erectus as presently labelled in China, could well be totally different geneticaly from H. erectus as presently named, and found in Africa.
We dont have nearly enough factual information yet, either way. H, erectus being a catch name for early hominids. I expect there may be better genetical divisions in the future? Which would verify Darwinianism?
If not,.....mans ancient ancestry will remain a mystery.

Do you maintain that the pre-American Red Indians
exterminated the horse? Prehistoric horses were dog size, quite small.
I have always understood that neither horses nor apes ever developed in the Americas. Since neither ever crossed into the American continent, dependant on what you believe?
Interestingly, Dinosaurus have been found in all Seven Continents.
Monkeys? I should have said Apes, they came later than monkeys. Nevertheless New World monkeys are somewhat diff from African monkeys, are a lot smaller and have more teeth. 38 as against 32, I think.

I will read your added URL's with interest later,.....short on time at the moment.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Yes, I do maintain the ancestors of the american Indians exterminated the horse; along with mammoth, mastodont, ground sloths, giant armadillo, I could go on. There are plenty of books on the subject but I'll try to find some websites. Horses were small until the Miocene but from then on were about the size of modern ponies.

Sure apes never made it to the Americas but you did say "monkeys" originally.

I believe there is a great deal of evidence that humans have been one continually evolving species for the last two million years. The concept of "species" is simply a classification tool. Without experiments we can't know if the species on the human line classified as different could not breed together. Most scientists love to be remembered as having discovered a new species, especially on the human line.

The different-looking humans around the earth at present are simply regional variations. All species and groups of species exhibit the same phenomenon.

Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5