https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan
"The Denisovans or Denisova hominins ( /dɪˈniːsəvə/ di-NEE-sə-və) are an extinct species or subspecies of archaic humans in the genus Homo. Pending its status as either species or subspecies, it currently carries the temporary names Homo sapiens [subspecies] denisova,[1][2][3] and Homo sp. Altai.[4] In March 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave that has also been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans.[5][6][7] The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the finger bone showed it to be genetically distinct from Neanderthals and modern humans.[8] The nuclear genome from this specimen suggested that Denisovans shared a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some modern humans,[9] with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians and around 6% in Papuans deriving from Denisovans."

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
When our ancestors first migrated out of Africa around 70,000 years ago, they were not alone. At that time, at least two other species of hominid cousins walked the Eurasian landmass—Neanderthals and Denisovans. As our modern human ancestors migrated through Eurasia, they encountered the Neanderthals and interbred. Because of this, a small amount of Neanderthal DNA was introduced into the modern human gene pool.

Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have approximately 2 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have none, or very little Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia.

How does anybody reconcile the storyline told by our DNA with white supremacist scriptures like the Bible and Mormon creation naratives?

They don't. They flood the schools, the government and even the churches and tell you you will go to hell if you dare to question them.

some 'smarter' mormons (Xtians?) are tweaking the definition of evolution...

Nephilim. It's right there in the Bible:

Genesis 6:1-4

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of
the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were
fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,
for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and
twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after
that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which
were of old, men of renown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2018 02:20AM by baura.

They could not possibly have been too different or real giants.

In order to mate with human women their sexual equipment would have had to match the women somehow or sex/bearing of children would have killed the ladies.

It's idiotic to take the Bible too literally.

The Neanderthals and Denisovans weren’t giants or gods.

The problem is with the Adam and Eve story, which actually gets worse because the genetics prevents it from being literal. Primordial Adam and primordial Eve most likely lived in different time periods and never met. Sorry Catholics, no original sin.

"Interbreeding: so easy even a caveman can do it"

The same way that my TBM friends react to any science that isn't compatible with their beliefs. They claim that there's something wrong with the science.

"Well that can't be right. Science isn't perfect, you know. I'm sure Heavenly Father will explain it all one day, so I'm not worried about it."

My recent foray into 23 and Me specifically neglected to mention Neanderthal ancestry. I was kind of disappointed.

I guess "my kind" has been in NW Europe practically since Creation.

My report mentioned specifically .2% Sub-Saharan African. I would love to know who they were and how they got into the "Broadly NW European" gaggle.

The most immediate ancestors I know of were an elegant German lady, from an area that now belongs to Poland; a Canadian dentist who claimed that his family could be divided into two groups: The Horse and Cattle Thief Clan, and the Land and Timber Thief Clan. We were reportedly descended from the horse and cattle group. They go back to Ireland. The rest were hardscrabble Scots-Irish heavy drinkers who had been in New England for as long as anybody could remember.

I would love to be able to time-travel and go back and find the Sub-Saharan African who ventured into the clan some time back.

Creationists ignore the Neanderthal concept. It doesn't work for them. That's why I chose 23 and Me, but it didn't help.

it says that the .2% "Sub-Saharan African" element in my background probably lived between 1680 and 1770.

And somebody who was apparently full-blooded "Ethiopian or Eritrean" got into the family bloodstream some time before the American Revolution?

Curioser and curiouser.

And what makes you think neanderthals weren't white and delightsome? White supremacists might think a touch of neander is what makes them better than everyone else.

One creationist response would be that Neanderthals were merely intelligent animals, created separately from humans. Since they shared some traits with humans, then of course some of their DNA would be similar.

Just don't mess with my Australopithecine DNA.

Any DNA Test that does not give you the information of Neanderthal and Denisova in the line should be sued for the money wasted. Holding it back means they give you incomplete results.

I'll tell you how my father explains it.

He will tell you that the 6,000 year creation is obviously not a thing and that "sub human species" are part of a de-evolution from Adam.

Kind of how Cain became Sasquatch.

I'm also a 23 and me contestant. Here is I was told [paraphrased] the most Neanderthal markers we have found in a sample is low 300's, you have 226 Neanderthal markers,
at first I was taken aback, now I embrace it!!

https://www.amazon.com/Shirts-23Andme-Neanderthal-Short-Sleeve/dp/B01EXXTSEI

I think would be cool to have Neanderthal DNA.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think would be cool to have Neanderthal DNA.


I have 3.3% Neanderthal DNA. They said that was high, with the average being about 2.7% for European DNA.

It makes me feel that they're not entirely extinct. A part of them lives on in us, which is pretty darn cool.

Exactly. I have always been fascinated by Neanderthals

They either reject the science or.take an allegorical view of Genesis

It's not Neanderthan DNA, you unfaithful heathen.

It's Pre-Adamite DNA.

Well as a creationist believer the way I interpret it is that these big headed, big ego bureaucratic academians despite all the books they write and the stories they imagined up, don't know what they are talking about.

I mean come on people their conclusions though entertaining, and lucrative, aren't scientifically logical or fully thought through. This is how they came to their conclusion, They find a pinky in a cave and then create an entire narrative and fairy tale about half human monsters mating with fair women. And this is the silliness they are selling to young people today enrolled in college. And because the naive are actually believing it, I say what they are doing is actually criminal.

Ignorance is bliss.

How do you know these various species of human weren’t created?

There wasn’t one Adam and one Eve, so all doctrine based on that falls apart and the “infallible” church leaders still pushing it look like morons. But that’s a separate issue.

Yes there may be various types of creatures that were created in the beginning. But the trouble with these so called experts is that they are reaching conclusions from faulty data. Human beings had different DNA back 6000 years ago because it was 6000 years ago and they were different people than we are today. But creating this proverbial "Lucy" creature out of a frozen pinky is a serious leap of faith. It's like trying to write the history of Pompea from the burned up books that are still there. Yes academians are trying to do it, but...

Or it's like trying to reconstruct the titanic when all they've got is a piece of iron from the sea...

Okay, wait. If that’s really how science works, how is it that you’re accessing this group via the Internet?

They have the complete genome sequence mapped of the Neanderthal DNA, so it's a lot to be ignorant of.

Sometimes ignorance requires a great act of will to be sustained.

We are in the presence of greatness.

I think that is a point that we sometimes miss. The distinction is made fairly often between archaic humans and modern humans but the reality is that their ability to interbreed means that they were as human as you and I.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that is a point that we sometimes miss.
> The distinction is made fairly often between
> archaic humans and modern humans but the reality
> is that their ability to interbreed means that
> they were as human as you and I.


We have the same number of chromosomes as they had and they certainly were homonids. But they were not homo-sapiens.

Many experts believe they were Homo Sapiens.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many experts believe they were Homo Sapiens.


Or a subspecies of Homo Sapien.



catnip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>it says that the .2% "Sub-Saharan African" element in my background


I have that too, which I find to be fascinating. I wish I could know more, but I probably never will.

Yes, the debate is over whether Neanderthals were a separate species within the genus or a variant within the homo sapiens species. The balance of opinion now appears to be that homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals are both homo sapiens.

I think you just witnessed the answer to your question, koriwhore.

I don't see what the "big deal" is with regard to modern humans and extinct Neanderthals sharing a tiny bit (1-3%) of DNA.

After all, most modern humans share 65% of their DNA in common with chickens.

https://education.seattlepi.com/animals-share-human-dna-sequences-6693.html

And your DNA is roughly 60% identical to that of a banana...

https://www.getscience.com/biology-explained/how-genetically-related-are-we-bananas

And it really isn't a settled question with regard to whether the DNA (regarding Neanderthals) is Neanderthal DNA in modern humans, or DNA that Neanderthals and humans shared before those two lines "broke off" from a common ancestor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2018 09:38AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Didn’t chickens evolve from dinosaurs? That’s why I like eating them. Payback.

:)

I feel compelled to point out something that I'm sure you know.

There is a distinction between shared DNA and contributed DNA. The shared DNA would be well past the 99% mark.

Yes, I know.

The thing is, the genetics scientific community isn't sure right now if the little bit of "Neanderthal DNA" in some modern human populations is shared or contributed.

There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but no definitive evidence.

It's pretty clear humans of the time had sex with Neanderthals of the time. Whether or not that produced viable offspring that survived and passed on "Neanderthal genes" isn't so clear. And it's interesting that no trace of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has been found any any modern humans (which could mean that if there was interbreeding, the only survivors came from Neanderthal males and human females).

So the DNA found in some modern humans that's also found in Neanderthals COULD be contributed (through inter-breeding), or it COULD be shared DNA that both the humans and Neanderthals got from a common ancestor.

Neither is yet certain.

(I feel it necessary to point out that the *total* amount of DNA shared between modern humans and Neanderthals is probably somewhere around 99%, which makes the banana/chicken thing pale in comparison...and yes, I was poking a bit of fun at the concepts being tossed around to make a point!)

Like the OP said, "Pending its status as either species or subspecies, it currently carries the temporary names Homo sapiens [subspecies] denisova"

If the shared mitochondrial DNA were from a common ancestor, then it should be present at the same level no matter where modern humans are encountered. But we know that is not true; as Koriwhore has documented, the ratio is lower (or non-existent) in Australia and Southeast Asia. The same is true of Denisovan DNA: it is far from constant across human populations, meaning that they too introduced their DNA into the homo sapiens sapiens gene pool after the groups had separated.

Am I missing something?

I think so -- there's no shared mitochondrial DNA. None has been found.

The mtDNA found in the Denisovan in the OP was distinct from both modern humans and Neanderthals. And no mtDNA shared between Neanderthals and modern humans has been found, either.

Which could mean lots of things...

I guess. . .

Interesting questions, good reasons to stay tuned.

...of Neanderthal DNA.

"How do you explain Neanderthal DNA in humans?" I asked.

He said: "Ugh!"

So there's your answer right there.

All I have found is that it’s a debate, but anyway ...

He needs to watch the Flintstones.

They say, "We don't know much about this, but when you die you will know. One thing we do know is that Adam is the progenitor of our race."

This pat answer rejects science, assumes TBMs are idiots and says we are better than all the other mere animals on the earth.

delbertlstapley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They say, "We don't know much about this, but when
> you die you will know. One thing we do know is
> that Adam is the progenitor of our race."
>
> This pat answer rejects science, assumes TBMs are
> idiots and says we are better than all the other
> mere animals on the earth.
I was never a science denier, even when I was TBM. But if I were still a believer I'd say Adam was obviously Homo Sapiens Idaltu, the First Wise Man and there were likely many Eves. There are 15 sub-species of Humans that we know of and we find new ones all the time.
They're all candidates for Adam's mates.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2018 01:19PM by koriwhore.

How should any of this knowledge affect or effect the way I treat a fellow human being?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2018 02:53PM by thedesertrat1.

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How should any of this knowledge affect or effect
> the way I treat a fellow human being?
Theoretically, realizing your close genetic kinship with your fellow men and other species, makes you more kind, hopefully.