I sent my spit off to 23andme.com and a month later they got back to me and let me know I am, no surprise, mostly British origin, with some Scandanavian, but much to my surprise, they told me my DNA was 4% Asian and 2.8% Neanderthal.
I know most people joke, gee, I would have thought that was low in your case. But it is low, for a Eurasian, who are on average 2.9% Neanderthal.
Asians are an additional 3-5% Denisovan.
And Africans are 0% Neanderthal or Denisovan, since their ancestors never made it out of Africa to interbreed with those other species of humans who predated our species by 3 times as long as we've existed. They predated us in Europe by 200,000 years. Homo Sapiens Sapiens (aka Modern Humans) have existed maybe 100,000 years, but that number is debatable, obviously, that's just what most scientists agree upon as a good round, conservative number. It's probably more like 200,000 but nobody can really draw a line in the sand and say, this is "Modern Human" and this is not.

The definition of a species is:a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

Meaning Neanderthals couldn't have been a different species from Homo Sapiens Sapiens, if they were similar enough to us to interbreed and exchange genes.

They must have been a sub-species, kind of like Foxes and Wolves are subspecies of canines, that can interbreed to give us all the different breeds of domestic dogs.

It seems to me pretty obvious that there's clearly a huge genetic difference between an Asian who is 5% Denisovan, and a European who is 4% Neanderthal.

There's on average a genetic difference of 3% between Asians and Europeans and 4% between Europeans and Africans and 7% difference between a Asians and an Africans.

Famous scientists like Bill Nye the Science guy have said, repeatedly that "We are all the same! There is no genetic basis for race".

https://www.good.is/videos/bill-nye-drops-science-on-racism
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/bill-nye-race-is-a-social-construct

"This isn't a groundbreaking idea in any way; sociologists and political scientists have argued over race for years. What's notable here though is that Nye is not making his claims from the platform of sociology. Instead, he's analyzing hard scientific evidence from a biological perspective. His argument that race doesn't exist is supported not by conjecture but through evolutionary evidence. "

But isn't that complete nonsense if Eurasians are 3% Neanderthal and Asians are on average 4% and Africans are zero?

So why say it?

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/denisovan/

That seems like a huge difference genetically, considering we are 99% Genetically identical to chimpanzees and Bonobos.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

Meaning we have more in common genetically, with Bonobos and Chimps than we do with other races?

No.
Turns out they've only been able to compare 25% of the human genome with chimpanzees and bonobos. So the jury is still out on that one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2017 09:10PM by koriwhore.

You got the definition wrong.
>
> The definition of a species is:a group of living
> organisms consisting of similar individuals
> capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

It's not about WHAT they can interbreed with but what they SELECT to breed with in their natural environment. Many species can interbreed but don't without environmental or other pressure as it's outside their mating instincts.

Yes, the definition is soft. It evolved as we gained greater understanding of chromosomes and genetics.


> Meaning Neanderthals couldn't have been a
> different species from Homo Sapiens Sapiens, if
> they were similar enough to us to interbreed and
> exchange genes.
>
> They must have been a sub-species, kind of like
> Foxes and Wolves are subspecies of canines, that
> can interbreed to give us all the different breeds
> of domestic dogs.

>
> They must have been a sub-species, kind of like
> Foxes and Wolves are subspecies of canines, that
> can interbreed to give us all the different
> breeds of domestic dogs.
>

While it's not really crucial to the point you're belaboring, foxes and wolves apparently cannot interbreed. I had no idea, but it's soooo easy to ask of Google...

"Members of the dog genus Canis: wolves, dogs (both common dogs and dingoes), coyotes, and golden jackals cannot interbreed with members of the wider dog family: the Canidae, such as South American canids, foxes, African wild dogs, bat-eared foxes or raccoon dog; or, if they could, their offspring would be infertile."

http://hounddogsdrule.com/k9-classroom/canid-hybrids/


Your seeming objection to Bill Nye's POV, that "We're all the same", would have more pith to it if there were interbreeding barriers. Since there aren't, where our genes 'grew up' on the planet doesn't seem to have much importance.

But then I'm looking for reasons to feel closer to my fellow men...

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > They must have been a sub-species, kind of like
>
> > Foxes and Wolves are subspecies of canines,
> that
> > can interbreed to give us all the different
> > breeds of domestic dogs.
> >
>
> While it's not really crucial to the point you're
> belaboring, foxes and wolves apparently cannot
> interbreed. I had no idea, but it's soooo easy to
> ask of Google...
>
> "Members of the dog genus Canis: wolves, dogs
> (both common dogs and dingoes), coyotes, and
> golden jackals cannot interbreed with members of
> the wider dog family: the Canidae, such as South
> American canids, foxes, African wild dogs,
> bat-eared foxes or raccoon dog; or, if they could,
> their offspring would be infertile."
>
> http://hounddogsdrule.com/k9-classroom/canid-hybri
> ds/
>

OK Wolf and Coyote
You get the point.
I get the feeling you're just being difficult.
https://www.fws.gov/redwolf/wolvesandcoyotes.html

>
> Your seeming objection to Bill Nye's POV, that
> "We're all the same", would have more pith to it
> if there were interbreeding barriers. Since there
> aren't, where our genes 'grew up' on the planet
> doesn't seem to have much importance.
>

My objection to Scientists like Bill Nye making false statements is that, while it might not seem politically correct to question somebody with his credentials and P.O.V., it's utter bullshit if there really IS a huge genetic difference between me and an African if I am 3% some other more ancient species and an asian is potentially 9% genetically some other ancient species than our own.

But obviously, it does have a lot of importance.
Genetic makeup has huge implications genetically and medically. We picked up all kinds of immunities to diseases that were unique to Europe and Asia within a very short time span by interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Personally to me it's like saying, "I'm color blind. I don't see race." I know a lot of people of color who say that's nonsense. Why not see race? Why not appreciate our diversity and celebrate it? Why pretend we're all exactly the same genetically, when obviously we are not.

>
> But then I'm looking for reasons to feel closer to
> my fellow men...

me too. and every other species.

Either Neanderthal chicks were super hot, or Neanderthal dudes were super horny, that's all I can figure out.


BYU Boner, where are you to straighten this out?

I assume that some Neanderthals were good people, but they didn't send their best.

That was funny!

I had mine tested through 23&me. It came back up to 4% Neanderthal. :)

I surpassed 85% of the population for neanderthal variants in my DNA.

Was very surprised that I had zero sub-Saharan African in my makeup.

No Asian either. I do have .01% Native American Indian. Tracing my lineage I've discovered am descended from Pocahontas. What are the odds? On a documentary of her life on the Smithsonian last week, it says something like 30,000 living descendants are from her offspring.

On our family genealogy she's listed as Rebecca Rolfe, married to John Rolfe. She only had one son before she died. He had three children.

I'm otherwise 100% European. All my variants are included within the European.

So Amyjo, you related to Elizabeth Warren?

tumwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Amyjo, you related to Elizabeth Warren?

She never claimed a relationship to Pocahontas. That was Trump's racial slur against her and Native American Indians in general.

She claims her great great grandmother descended from Cherokee Indians.

Pocahontas was from the Pawmunkey tribe.

There are two first ladies who were descendants of Pocahontas known to genealogists. Edith Bolling Wilson, and Nancy Reagan.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had mine tested through 23&me. It came back up

>
>
>
> No Asian either. I do have .01% Native American
> Indian. Tracing my lineage I've discovered am
> descended from Pocahontas. What are the odds?


Odds seem pretty good since you and I both are descended from Pocahontas-according to Family Search.

I'm a bit skeptical...details about children of John Rolfe seem a bit fuzzy.

It is surprising. When I saw that on Family Search it didn't register at first that Rebecca Rolfe was Pocahontas, before my DNA was tested. Then it clicked.

You and me would be cousins by virtue of some degree there. There's a good chance we're related via other relatives because of the overlap between relatives and familial connections - we could be related in a myriad of ways through those relatives that date back that far.

:-)

I also have 4% of Neanderthal genes. I was born in South America, but my grand parents in both side of my family were Irish. Argentina has a high percentage of people whose ancestry is of Non-Spanish European population like Germans, Italians, Irish and others.
South American natives share Asian genes like most indigenous people of North America, but in addition they carry Melanesian genes, that they acquired long before the Europeans "discovered" the Americas. So, they have a high percentage of Neanderthal genes and also carry Denisovan genes

Hi there cuzzin!

:D

I think we could interbreed because we had the same number of chromosomes. We would have a common ancestor with them, but we are on different branches of the tree, so to speak.

I am 3.3% Neanderthal.

I also am about just a few 10th’s shy of 4% myself. About that temple work....?

Horse and donkeys have different chromosome counts. And the resulting mules and Jennie's are generally sterile but about 10% are fertile. That's a surprisingly high number.

And why do you continue to rehash debunked arguments over and over like a broken record?

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1693207,1693754

THat was from over 2 yrs ago.
Yeah, I'm 'rehashing things' from over 2 years ago.

It's hardly been debunked.

I'm just looking for intelligent conversation.
Maybe the wrong forum?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2017 10:38PM by koriwhore.

Rehash and debunked
1. you still don't understand the definition of a species
2. You still don't understand Bill Nye's statement
3. You still don't understand how to apply the percentage comparisons
4. You repeat the same nonsense about race

Rehash and debunked. Learn and move on. You demonstrate many recurring ruts in your thinking, often fixating on people's comments you misapply.

I think that fundamentals of Anthropology and genetics should be teach in High School to avoid confusion.
In the USA, unfortunately some people confused race with species.
In addition, some people never understood that race is only skin deep, only useful for identification purposes. Races developed as a reaction or adaptation to environmental forces.
Some people though that there is a ranking of "better" races than other; so anthropologist end up saying there is no races, but only one human race.
Only a small percentage of people in South Sahara Africa, lack Neanderthal genes; but North Africans, like the rest of the world share Neanderthal genes.
Neanderthal, Homo sapiens and Denisovan all of them share the same ancestral origin

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rehash and debunked
> 1. you still don't understand the definition of a
> species
Take it up with Google Dictionary, thats the first result, not mine.
Got a better one?
Feel free to define it fron some more definitive source.
> 2. You still don't understand Bill Nye's
> statement
Thats just your opinion, which is wrong, IMHO. He says there's no difference between races scientifically. He's obviously wrong if Eurasians are 3% Neanderthal and Africans are none. Thats a huge difference, which should be clear but its obscured by a desire to sound more politically correct than anybody else, but its utter nonsense.
> 3. You still don't understand how to apply the
> percentage comparisons
Im in good company with actual geneticists who mapped the Neanderthal genome.
> 4. You repeat the same nonsense about race
>
> Rehash and debunked. Learn and move on. You
> demonstrate many recurring ruts in your thinking,
> often fixating on people's comments you misapply.
Thats just your opinion, which is IMHO, utter nonsense.

Many here find this an interesting topic thread discussion.

Two years ago many of us weren't even here yet. Many thread topics are revived or renewed.

If you aren't interested in the topic discussion then read something that does interest you, and skip what doesn't.

I don't object to the topic repeating. I object to the same person who didn't learn the first time repeating the same mistakes

You can both have differing opinions and perspectives.

Not everyone agrees on the origins of humans, including among science.

It's closed mindedness that prevents people from being open to learning. Not discussion.

You could learn something from koriwhore's viewpoints. Your ideas aren't any less absolute than his are.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2017 02:07PM by Amyjo.

All 4 of my points above are basic. They are not about the origins of humans. Science doesn't disagree that koriwhore's definition of species is inadequate and incorrect and so on.

>
> Why pretend we're all exactly the same
> genetically, when obviously we are not.
>

From my perspective, you're conflating the manner in which an individual's gene's express themselves with the fact that the DNA 'plan' is the same among all the human beings alive today, which is why we can interbreed.

If we're made according to plan, we all have 23 pairs of chromosomes, which have about 20,000 human protein coding genes. That all humans have these 23 pairs allow us to 'breed true'. But then the genes take over and we have the varied outward expressions that make us unique, or make us identical twins.

You seem to be fixated on the outward expressions, rather than the basic plan. I think of it as the same blueprint being handed out to different builders and they chose from among all the possible building blocks and colors available to them.

Who is there to verify if 23 and Me is accurate?

Did anyone else with 3% Neanderthal say, "Oh, yeah, I remember Koriwhore over there with that bunch of whacky kids and the father who kept stealing my stone ax! That bastard!!!"

It's not just 23andme.
It's Svante Pääbo, head geneticist at Max Planck Institut, who wrote the authoritative book on the subject, who I trust a lot more than Bill Nye, the engineer, not scientist.
Geneticisthttps://www.ted.com/talks/svante_paeaebo_dna_clues_to_our_inner_neanderthal
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/books/review/neanderthal-man-by-svante-paabo.html

This is a frustrating post because it is, as was the previous version of the same content, largely wrong.

Rather than just citing random articles from National Geographic to support your preconceptions, why not go there with an open mind to learn? Search for articles on race, for example. If you did that, you would find that the editors and scientists at that institution agree that "genetics makes a mockery of race." October 14, 2017. Chalk one up for Bill Nye (and virtually every other scientist who has studied this stuff).

You would also learn, in the same issue, that HSS and Neanderthals and Denisovans are not the same species and that there are remnants of at least one more species in our DNA. All of which indicates that your definition of "species" is wrong.

And you are not more closely related to chimps and bonobos than to Asians and Africans. This isn't because the entire genomes haven't been sorted out yet but because your math is wrong. You can't simply add percentages of DNA from related species: it doesn't work that way. You are not 1% different from chimpanzees and 4 or 7% away from other HSS.

Shifting to a different misconception by a different person, it makes no sense to say that any modern human has no African DNA. All hominid species derive their DNA from Africa. Those DNA profiles simply choose an arbitrary date--say, 300 years ago--as a baseline and then compare your DNA from today to conclude that there is no contribution (in the last 300 years). But if you follow your DNA back 100,000 years, it all came from Africa. There may be some mutations, but you (and we all) are African.

That's my point, we're all mostly African.
If I'm 3% Neanderthal, that means the other 97% is African, unless I'm part Denisovan, which I am, given the fact I'm 4% Asian.

No, it does not mean that you are 97% African or 93% African.

Neanderthal DNA is African; HSS DNA is African. The differences arise because of mutations, markers between different groups of modern humans. You inherited some of your DNA from Neanderthal and perhaps Denisovan variants of African antecedents.

Humans are around 99% the same as chimpanzees; and the variations you are looking at are variations within the 1% that differentiates us as humans. You are not more closely related to bonobos or chimps than to subsets of modern humans.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, it does not mean that you are 97% African or
> 93% African.
>
> Neanderthal DNA is African; HSS DNA is African.
> The differences arise because of mutations,
> markers between different groups of modern humans.
> You inherited some of your DNA from Neanderthal
> and perhaps Denisovan variants of African
> antecedents.
>
> Humans are around 99% the same as chimpanzees; and
> the variations you are looking at are variations
> within the 1% that differentiates us as humans.
> You are not more closely related to bonobos or
> chimps than to subsets of modern humans.

That makes sense. Thanks for articulating that so well.
I don't disagree with science, I just see where guys like Bill Nye (Who I admire and respect) are wrong about there being no such thing, scientificallt speaking, as race. He completely overlooks the genetic markers for race, the well established genetic evidence that Eurasians are 2-4% Neanderthal and Asians are 3-5% Denisovan and Africans are neither.
Which sort of turns white supremacy on its head because it means everybody but Africans are mutts, whose ancestors were fucking Sasquaches and Yettis.

> I don't disagree with science, I just see where
> guys like Bill Nye (Who I admire and respect) are
> wrong about there being no such thing,
> scientificallt speaking, as race. He completely
> overlooks the genetic markers for race, the well
> established genetic evidence that Eurasians are
> 2-4% Neanderthal and Asians are 3-5% Denisovan and
> Africans are neither.

No, he doesn't -- you simply don't "get it."
Those differences make for *variations* among humans. They aren't "genetic markers for race."
Which has been pointed out to you over and over and over.
Bill Nye gets it.
You don't.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I don't disagree with science, I just see where
> > guys like Bill Nye (Who I admire and respect)
> are
> > wrong about there being no such thing,
> > scientificallt speaking, as race. He completely
> > overlooks the genetic markers for race, the
> well
> > established genetic evidence that Eurasians are
> > 2-4% Neanderthal and Asians are 3-5% Denisovan
> and
> > Africans are neither.
>
> No, he doesn't -- you simply don't "get it."
> Those differences make for *variations* among
> humans. They aren't "genetic markers for race."
> Which has been pointed out to you over and over
> and over.
> Bill Nye gets it.
> You don't


Thank you !!!!!!!!!

An educable one at that.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I sent my spit off to 23andme.com and a month
> later they got back to me and let me know I am, no
> surprise, mostly British origin, with some
> Scandanavian, but much to my surprise, they told
> me my DNA was 4% Asian and 2.8% Neanderthal.
> I know most people joke, gee, I would have thought
> that was low in your case. But it is low, for a
> Eurasian, who are on average 2.9% Neanderthal...


Or I could say, “I sent away for my birth chart, and I’m:

Sun in Cancer
Moon in Libra
Virgo rising
Year of the Dragon

Marry Scorpio
Avoid Sagittarius”

Does that make any better sense than if I were 3% Neanderthal?

Your astrological sign is different than your DNA.

Astrology is a pseudo science. DNA is a hard science.

Therein lies the difference.

Astrology is subjective.

DNA is objective.

Oh, I know. I was half being silly. But, my question is, what does any of it matter?

Are you sure you knew that?

How long until Mormon scientists isolate the priesthood gene to a specific mutation in the Neanderthal genome?

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But isn't that complete nonsense if Eurasians are
> 3% Neanderthal and Asians are on average 4% and
> Africans are zero?

No, it's not "complete nonsense."

For one very simple reason:

Pick anybody around you where you live now, that looks a lot like you and has a similar ancestry.

The odds are extremely high that if you compare your genes to that person, there's more than a 4% difference.

In fact, the odds are really high that there's MORE difference between you and that person who's much like you than there is between you and somebody from Africa with 0% Neanderthal genes.

That's why it's not complete nonsense.

I don't think that is right, Hie.

We know that there is far more genetic diversity between Africans than between Africans and any other "race." That means that any two Europeans, or a European and an Asian or a European and a Native American, are offshoots from a much later and smaller part of the African spectrum and hence are much more closely related.

To put the point differently, if we assumed some specific level of genetic divergence and said "anything above this level" means separate races, we would end up with a dozen or more races in Africa and a single race of "everyone else."

As you have said, the notion that Europeans and Asians are different "races" is silly. It's as silly as the notion that any human being has DNA that originated anywhere besides Africa. The mutations may have occurred in Europe or Asia, but they were tiny changes in DNA that came from Africa--and came quite recently.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think that is right, Hie.

I think it is...though I hope we're not talking about different things!

The basic premise is that a typical individual varies from a "reference" human genome by only 0.5% (99.5% the same). When all genetic differences known are tallied up, about 85% of them come from *within* populations, and only 15% of them come from *between* populations.

We can identify which populations someone "came from" by specific haplogroups or other markers that are common (with variations!) within specific populations. The presence of those identifying markers within a population doesn't mean the population is genetically homogenous, though.

This is one paper that I think does a good job explaining it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

The point you cited is certainly valid, of course. And it argues against "race" claims -- because the large number of identifiable populations in Africa almost all share many of the physical characteristics erroneously used as "race" by humans. It's just that many of the identifiable populations there were isolated for quite some time, and population-specific mutations arose without much admixture. So in Africa we find many "identifiable" populations, where in groups that left Africa there was more admixture -- population-identifying haplogroups spread more widely, resulting in less separable "populations," but also increasing individual variability.

A slightly different point.

Mutations occur at a predictable rate. It follows that where a species has existed the longest, the genetic variation is greatest.

Since HSS evolved 2-300,000 years ago in Africa, the vast majority of mutations occurred in the population there. A small subset then migrated out of the continent (two big waves, actually, perhaps with smaller ones as well). The mutations that accumulated in the migrant population started at that exit date and while mutations continued to arise in the original African groups.

That's the main reason how we know the species originated in Africa: that's where the greatest genetic diversity exists today. The peoples who left Africa are much more closely related to each other than the various African gene pools are to each other.

Does that make sense?

Should Mormons be surprised to learn that we originated in Africa instead of Missouri?

Could we soon see an article in that science journal "The Ensign" written by Daniel C Petersen Ph.D that attributes the explosive LDS growth in Nigeria and Ghana to "The Deep Dark Seed Theory" of our African ancestry. :)

What term for a human (male or female) who will "breed" (fuck) any other nearby human <preferring the opposite gender, that is>?

will this 3% clash with my 46% Australopithecine ?

Only Africans south of the Sahara lack Neanderthal genes. However, Africans north of the Sahara like those from Libya, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia and some others like Ethiopian share some % of Neanderthal genes.

With the exception of people South of the Sahara, the rest of the world share Neanderthal genes.

Interesting.

And I've read that all homo sapiens share some sub-Sarahan DNA. Until my own was tested and came back as not having one scintilla, did I realize that is a fallacy.

Whereas my having some Neanderthal is at least identifiable; dating back to some 40-80,000 years ago.

Neanderthals were European from Germanic origins.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And I've read that all homo sapiens share some
> sub-Sarahan DNA. Until my own was tested and came
> back as not having one scintilla, did I realize
> that is a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy.
The results you got simply are on a different time-frame than the "Neanderthal" results.
You *do* have "sub-Saharan DNA." In effect, all human DNA is "sub-Saharan DNA." You just don't have any identifiable from that region as specific from the past 300 years or so :)

The testing services don't make the different time frames very clear, that's all.

They were able to find the DNA markers from 40,000-80,000 years ago. Why not the other? Because it wasn't there.

There were no identifying markers indicating it was. Nor does the ancestry report state anywhere that it was underlying.

That we descended from sub-Saharan African is, in fact, a well known hypothesis, ie conjecture. It's another form of brainwashing based on unsupported evidence and propaganda to state otherwise.

Anyone who says otherwise isn't paying attention to science.

Why trade one set of rigidly held beliefs for another?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2017 04:36PM by Amyjo.

That is nonsense, Amyjo. You should do a little reading from time to time.

All humans have sub-Saharan DNA. Every single one.

And Neanderthals did not come from Germany. They originated in Africa, spread into almost all of the Middle East and western Eurasia and then back into northern Africa.

Some of the mutations occurred outside of Africa, but all homo sapiens, Neanderthal, and Denisovan DNA originated in Africa. There is no debate about that.

My Dad’s DNA came back as being 7% German. I don’t know if that refers only to modern times, or if there is any relationship also to our Neanderthal DNA.

I got 0.1 Sub-Saharan African as well.

My genes are 100% Wranglers...unless you count that incident with Levis, which is still a shameful stain on the family.

Good grief! I (a white-skinned Caucasian, whose ancestors are from England) am now confused re.if I--also of RfM kinship--should be associating with the likes of some of the folks who participate on this site.

I think this is why the church fought so hard against evolution and insisted on a literal Eden. Everyone has African DNA and therefore (using the one-drop rule) not a single person would be eligible for the priesthood. If the church accepted evolution, it would have to concede that none of its prophets could hold its priesthood, nor anyone they ordained, and the entire foundation of church authority would crash down in a pile of smoking rubble. Even now, post-1978, since all the lines of authority commenced long before then.

Oh, how I wish I could see Brigham Young's face when he was informed that he had African "blood" in him. Mark E. Petersen too.

Dunno if the Nephilim were supposed to be a separate earthly race or an alien species but the good book tells us that they mixed their seed with the daughters of men.

Whatever that was all about I can't help but wonder.

I was thinking more about where the Neanderthals ended, rather than where they began.

Koriwhore,

Where are you getting your bizarre racial ideas from? If the answer is stormfront or any of the other alt-right groups, you might want to consider studying actual science.

The lines of descent of today's chimpanzees and humans may have split in Europe and not - as is often believed - in Africa, according to researchers at a German university.
What is more, this evolutionary step may have occurred a few hundred thousand years earlier than previously assumed, the researchers say.
The revolutionary theory was presented in the periodical "PLOS One" by a team of researchers led by Madelaine Böhme at the Tübingen-based Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Paleoenvironment (HEP).
Dental root as evidence
The team headed by Böhme examined the only two existing specimens of the "Graecopithecus freybergi" hominid, nicknamed "El Graeco" by researchers.
Der älteste Vormensch könnte aus Europa statt Afrika stammen SPERRFIRST 22. MAI 20:00 UHR (picture-alliance/dpa/Universität Tübingen/ W. Gerber)
This tooth of the "Graecopithecus freybergi" was discovered in Bulgaria
The hominid species includes humans and their fossil ancestors as well as some of the great apes. The specimens concerned are a lower jaw found in Greece (above photo) and a tooth discovered in Bulgaria.
After detailed analyses, the research team concluded that Graecopithecus was a pre-human species hitherto unknown. For example, the dental roots were, for the most part, fused - a feature that is characteristic of humans and their extinct relatives. Great apes usually have separate dental roots.
"We were surprised by our results, as pre-humans were previously known only from sub-Saharan Africa," said Jochen Fuss, one of the researchers involved in the study.
After analyzing the sediments from which the fossils had been retrieved, the research team dated the lower jaw to 7.175 million years and the tooth to 7.24 million years ago. That makes the two specimens older than than the hitherto oldest known pre-human from Africa, Sahelanthropus, which is dated to about 6 to 7 million years ago.
Read: 10 facts you probably didn't know about great apes
East Africa or Europe?
The researchers have thus now concluded that the pre-human lineage split from chimpanzees may have occurred earlier, and not in Africa, but in the eastern Mediterranean region.
Internationaler Momente-des-Lachens-Tag (picture-alliance/dpa)
At some time, humans and chimpanzees parted ways
The "East Side Story," according to which pre-humans originated in Africa, was now called into question by the European "North Side Story," said Böhme during the presentation of the study's findings in Tübingen. "I now expect frantic reactions, I expect a lot of dissent," she said.
She intends to corroborate her theory, including with analyses of "El Graeco's" nourishment. In addition, she plans to look for further clues pointing to the evolution of pre-humans beyond Africa - in Iran, Iraq and, possibly, Lebanon.
"The split of humankind's hominid ancestors from the great apes is badly documented," says Jean-Jacques Hublin, head of the Human Evolution department at the Leipzig-based Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, who is not involved with the study.
"This is not the first time that researchers have suggested the occurrence (of those ancestors) in southern Europe's extensive fossil record."

http://www.dw.com/en/study-the-oldest-pre-human-could-originate-from-europe-not-africa/a-39004699