Adam and Eve were not just conjured up on a newly created Earth six thousand years ago. Humans evolved from primates and we are far, far older than that.

Denisovan Jawbone Discovered in a Cave in Tibet
https://nyti.ms/2GVJtK3


In 1980, a Buddhist monk in Tibet entered a sacred cave to pray. On the floor, he found half of a human jawbone, studded with two teeth.

A team of scientists on Wednesday reported that the fossil belonged to a 160,000-year-old Denisovan, a member of a lineage of mysterious, Neanderthal-like humans that disappeared about 50,000 years ago.

The fossil is the first evidence of this species found outside the Denisova Cave in Siberia, buttressing the theory that these relatives of modern humans once lived across much of central and eastern Asia.

“I’m very excited — we have a Denisovan that’s somewhere else than Denisova,” said Bence Viola, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Toronto who was not involved in the new study. “We’d known about Denisovans for 10 years and hadn’t found them anywhere else.”


The new fossil demonstrates that Denisovans were remarkably hardy, able to endure harsh conditions on the Tibetan plateau, at an elevation of 10,700 feet, with only simple stone tools.

The find also suggests that these Denisovans may have evolved genetic adaptations to high altitudes, and that living Tibetans may have inherited those genes thanks to interbreeding between Denisovans and modern humans in prehistoric times.

In the 1970s, Russian researchers began excavating Denisova Cave in Siberia. Over the years, they found a wealth of bones. A few looked like they might have come from humans or an extinct human relative.

Hoping for clues, the archaeologists sent some of the bones to the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, whose experts excel at retrieving DNA from fossils.


Some of the bones contained Neanderthal DNA, it turned out. But in 2010, Max Planck researchers discovered that one finger bone held different genes from an unknown human lineage.

Over the past decade, scientists have discovered more Denisovan teeth and bone fragments, including a chunk of a skull. Denisovans appeared to have lived in the cave, off and on, from 287,000 years ago to about 50,000 years ago.

Judging from their DNA, Denisovans shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals about 400,000 years ago. They interbred with Neanderthals and with our own species. Today, people in East Asia, Australia, the Pacific islands and the Americas all carry some Denisovan DNA.

The spread of Denisovan DNA in living humans strongly suggested that they may have lived throughout East and Southeast Asia. And maybe not just there: Earlier this month, a team of researchers argued that a population of Denisovans reached New Guinea and interbred further with modern humans.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 01:18PM by anybody.

Is my presumption correct that the Lamanite people of America have not "tested positive" for any trace of Denisovan heritage?

Fascinating find, anybody.

Thanks for posting that !!! It truly is fascinating.

LOL @ exmos who be leaf this nonsense ~


just LOL ~


in b 4 ~ some pagan chinaman just happens to find a piece of jawbone on the floor of his sacred cave that nobody seems to have noticed b 4 ~


LOL @ pagan chinaman ~


brb ~ some atheist canadian sez the bone belongs to some million year-old dude from siberia ~


LOL @ atheist canadian ~


brb ~ exmos swallow it all as truth because "science" ~


in b 4 ~ who da f*ck uses a cave for thousands of years anyway ? ~


just LOL @ these gullable exmos ~


brb ~ LOL'ing out loud ~

When clearly we don't. After years of a politically correct narrative, they finally have to admit the multiple origins theory is correct.

You wonder what else will come out about human origins once real science (not political correctness) is applied.

What is "cultural Marxism?"

And how does the Denisovan story indicate that there are "multiple origins" of humanity and that different groups of humans have different blood when all human species originated in Africa?

You and your siblings have distinct DNA both because you only got a random subset of genes from each parent and because there are mutations that make each of you unique. Does that mean that you and your siblings have different blood?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And how does the Denisovan story indicate that
> there are "multiple origins" of humanity and that
> different groups of humans have different blood
> when all human species originated in Africa?

Denisovans are clearly among the ancestors of East Asians. Neanderthals appear to have inhabited the same regions whites originate in, and had light skins and large noses. This is probably no coincidence, but people have been reluctant to discuss the implications of the scientific data due to political consequences and accusations of racism.

There is evidence of other species contributing to human ancestry elsewhere, and in spite of this theory being put forward way back in the nineteenth century, it was pushed to one side in the late twentieth for political reasons.

The PC story is that Homo Sapiens all come from the same bloodline in the recent past. We don't, and evidence is emerging that we have distinct divisions which go back ten times further than previously claimed. Clearly we have bits and pieces of other species in us, and that's probably what helped make us look a bit different to each other.

What we learn here is that Asians and Australasians didn't start in Africa but in Asia itself. True, the two bloodlines might trace back to Africa although the migrations were thousands of years apart, but they were distinct and the interbreeding that produced them never happened in Africa itself. And the African connection for Denisovans is about ten times further back than the usual claims about the emergence of our species.

It seems ironic that cultural Marxists preach diversity but are so keen to undermine it in reality. Maybe in the end up, their so called diversity program is only a tool to collapse western societies through infighting... Yet the evidence is there, different groups of humans do have distinctive origins and blends... Despite all the preaching about us being all the same. We're not thank God!

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When clearly we don't. After years of a
> politically correct narrative, they finally have
> to admit the multiple origins theory is correct.

You mean different places within Africa?

I think the allusion is to a theory that was particularly prominent in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. It posited the separate evolution of humans from various primate species in different parts of Africa/Europe/Asia. If one accepted that theory, it was possible to say that "races" were real and that there were fundamental differences between them. It was at heart a story that allowed people to act as if their race were superior to others.

Ironically, given that Jordan weds that theory to his opposition to "cultural Marxism," whatever that means, the foremost advocates of the theory were the Chinese Communists and the scientists over whom they held sway. Mao and his boys were intent on showing that China developed its own civilization without cultural pollution from other peoples. China was more than an offshoot of Africa or Europe: it was an independent and (sotto voce) greater race and civilization than anywhere else. This view was particularly emphasized after relations between Beijing and Moscow deteriorated from 1956 onward, when China wanted to distance itself from Russian and the West.

So here we have a Marxist theory used unwittingly to criticize Marxism. Of course, not even Chinese scientists espouse the theory anymore. It is a child with no parents.

:)

Thank you, Lot's Wife. I didn't know.

The questions I have center around the linking births, those which took place during the [obviously long] period when almost-but-not-quite humans were procreating with what we would categorize, hesitantly but broadly, as the earliest humans (which depends, of course, on the definition being used for "human").

I know that those who study this period of human evolution appear to be fairly close to answers, and that new data (and bones!) keep being discovered, but we are still in the comparative Dark Ages regarding the comprehensive long history of what became our species.

So far as I know, Africa is still the accepted place of origin for humans in general.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 09:38PM by Tevai.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So far as I know, Africa is still the accepted
> place of origin for humans in general.

But not of Asians, since the interbreeding that produced East Asians didn't occur in Africa itself, and the Denisovans' ancestors didn't leave Africa in the recent past, but the best part of a million years ago. Most Africans have little or no Denisovan ancestry except through back migration from Eurasia. There is some evidence of Neanderthal ancestry in North Africa, but that is also from back migration from Iberia.

No one wants to hear this, because they've been taught continually such ideas are "racist" or anti-African. They're not, they're just a scientific fact with evidence to back them up. If it doesn't fit the tenets of cultural Marxism, then tough. Opinions don't change the data, only interpretation thereof.

At this point, broadly speaking, I'm seeing that Europeans and their descendants generally have from 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, and Asians/East Asians have 3-6% Denisovian DNA (the 6% is unusual and is confined to one particular small population.)

So Asians and East Asians are about as much Denisovian as we are Neanderthal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan#/media/File:Spread_and_evolution_of_Denisovans.jpg

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jordan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When clearly we don't. After years of a
> > politically correct narrative, they finally
> have
> > to admit the multiple origins theory is
> correct.
>
> You mean different places within Africa?

Nope. East Asians originate in Asia according to the evidence. Not in Africa. The two bloodlines might lead back to Africa, but the interbreeding did not happen in Africa itself. Also the Denisovan line left Africa long long before Homo Sapiens is supposed to have emerged. The best part of a million years ago, before woolly mammoths evolved, let alone went extinct, and ten times further back than homo sapiens appear to have left Africa.

Likewise white people didn't emerge in Africa but in Eurasia. And whites appear to have Neanderthal ancestry which accounts for why they look so odd compared to other types of human.

Human evolution has nothing to do with Karl Marx.

Or do you mean this old racist cr*p?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

--Judge Leon Bazile in Virginia v. Loving, Caroline County Court 1958

It's B.S.

Sorry, Charlie...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_expansions_of_hominins_out_of_Africa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 09:12PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Human evolution has nothing to do with Karl Marx.

Karl Marx based his ideas around Hegel and Darwin among others. I suggest you actually read some of his work (and his buddy Engels) instead of pontificating about it. Social evolution is a major part of his ideology... But to be fair modern Marxism has little to do with Karl Marx, and he even lived long enough to say "I am not a Marxist!"

But I was talking about Cultural Marxism, which is something else again. Many of the people who spout cultural Marxist ideas don't even know them to be such.

Cultural Marxism didn't invent evolutionary theory, but it has tried repeatedly to infiltrate science. It has been successful in taking over academia in general and parts of the mass media. Hard science is harder to undermine as it relies on data, but there have even been attacks on that.

> Or do you mean this old racist cr*p?

Thanks for demonstrating what I'm talking about. Modern political and cultural sensibilities intruding into science, and trying to remove the bits which don't suit.

It's not "racism", it's cold hard scientific fact. It *doesn't* mean different races should be *discriminated against* or separated, but it does mean they have different origins and that what makes us look different. We're not all the same.

There is no scientific basis for race.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

It's your problem if you need racism to make yourself feel superior. Everyone on Earth is a descendant of Africans.


You came from people who looked like this:

http://kalaharisan.blogspot.com/2013/05/cnn-traditional-san-dance-group-video.html


If you don't like it, too bad.

Deal with it.

Spencer Wells "Journey Of Man: A Genetic Odyssey"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_xTG6VXlIQ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2019 12:03AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no scientific basis for race.

No, of course not... That's why natives of Greenland look exactly the same as people from Kenya, right? I mean "because science", right? (Answer - they don't.)

And when someone digs up a skeleton, all skeletons look the exact same - same shaped skulls, same stature, same pelvis shape. (Answer - that's untrue as well. Even without DNA testing, it's possible to tell the difference between a short person from Greenland with a broad skull from a very tall Masai warrior from Kenya with a narrow skull. These are two extreme examples, but there are differences. Native Australians have big brow ridges, native Europeans rarely have, and native Europeans have noses which stick out, and you can see that when the flesh has all disappeared.)

But I guess none of that is "science", because we're all the same, right?

> It's your problem if you need racism to make
> yourself feel superior. Everyone on Earth is a
> descendant of Africans.

Read what I said. The Denisovan interbreeding with homo sapiens, which produced East Asians occurred in Asia, not in the African Rift Valley. The Denisovans' ancestors left Africa at least, 7 or 800 thousand years ago... At least ten times as long ago as Homo Sapiens did.

Denisovans and Neanderthals left Africa so long ago that they adapted to cold. In the case of Denisovans, they adapted to high altitudes on the Tibetan plateau. Africa, with the exception of a few places, rarely gets snow. There is no equivalent to the Himalayas there (unlike the Americas) Both of these species are products of Eurasian climatic conditions, not African ones, and both of these species contributed to Eurasian DNA.

> If you don't like it, too bad.
>
> Deal with it.

It's got nothing to do with whether anyone "likes it". It is scientific fact. You can't change science through sentiment. You're the guy who's telling us that we all look the same inside and out, and that race is an illusion. If that was the case then it would be impossible to tell where anyone's ancestors came from, because we all look the same, right? And white Australians would have the same rate of skin cancer as indigenous Australians, because there is clearly no scientific difference between white and black Australians, and no adaptations have taken place in the vast amount of time humans have been in Australia.

So a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are different species? Races?

Since they can interbreed and the physical differences disappear, what you say makes no sense.

Fascinating stuff, Anybody. Thanks for sharing.

Podcasts with Graham Hancock are pretty interesting and he's been talking about ancient civilizations for quite some time fighting the scientific community for years and pushing new frame of thinking and understanding about these things.

Graham Hancock? The old reporter? He has an undergraduate degree in sociology and worked for newspapers. His "science" is tinfoil hat stuff.

His books include Fingerprints of the Gods and Magicians of the Gods. He did a TEDx talk in which he urged young people to take an Amazonian drug to expand their consciousness in order to understand the truth of ancient civilizations.

I think you guys should stick with "cultural Marxism."

Humans did not evolve from primates. We ARE primates. We did evolve from a common ancestor to all great apes. And I'm the greatest ape-eist.

Yep, you are correct...

I'm bracing for a thread on the New Apeyism.

Only total percentage body hair can prove that.

I'm going to take some of this Jordan stuff on. I hope to do this in less than a book, but it's going to be tough.

Marxism. Darwin's contribution was minimal. Jordan states that Marxism is all about "social evolution," which is not quite true. It is about economic evolution. Yes, Hegel was important but his dialectic was about thesis and anti-thesis in philosophy, not society or race or politics. So you are taking one element of Marxism--Hegelian philosophy--marrying it to Darwinism, which had only a minimal impact on Marx and Engels, and claiming that that mixture produces an erroneous picture of human evolution. We are to take that seriously?

Marx never discussed genetics and race. Claiming that he did is about as tendentious as one can get. There is no "Marxist" vision of genetics and it has had no impact on racial history.

-------------

Racial genetics. Your timetable is way off. The standard theory is that hominid family evolved roughly a million years ago, there were several migrations out of Africa, and HSS left somewhere around 70-100,000 BCE. HSS then encountered several different other human groups and interbred with them. Your notion that modern, Marxist-inspired "science" is wrong, or is proved wrong by these new discoveries, is false. Nor has anything in these new discoveries changed the dominant timetable. What we are getting is more detail, not anything fundamentally different.

Race is in fact a scientifically meaningless concept. The genetic differences between Europeans and Asians are miniscule; the two groups diverged about 45,000 years ago north of the Black/Caspian Seas. And the mixture of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA is nowhere near as "clean" as you suggest. Neanderthals and Denisovans overlapped massively; the cave in which the Denisovan finger was found was home to many Neanderthals, and the DNA profile is muddled throughout Central Asia. So the notion that HSS+Neanderthal=European and HSS+Denisovan=East Asia is nonsensical.

Moreover if there were some level of genetic diversity that translated into different "races," there would be many races in Africa and none outside of that continent. Asians and Europeans are nearly identical. But there is in any case no standard for race because the concept is empirically impossible.


------------

So I challenge you, Jordan, to show where in Marx's works he discusses race and genetics. Above you suggested that "anybody" read Marx and Engles, and now I am putting that to you. If you are so familiar with Marx's writings, you should have no problem pointing us to the exact "false narrative" that he touted.

And can you please indicate where your concept of "cultural Marxism" comes from? Since it isn't in Marx or Engels, I suspect it is in secondary works written by people with an agenda but not an education. Please show us your sources. Otherwise we may be tempted to conclude that "cultural Marxism" means nothing more than "Things I, Jordan, don't like."

Cheers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2019 02:45AM by Lot's Wife.

I think he means this
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim

What are they talking about? The tale varies in the telling, but the theory of cultural Marxism is integral to the fantasy life of the contemporary right. It depends on a crazy-mirror history, which glancingly reflects things that really happened, only to distort them in the most bizarre ways.

It begins in the 1910s and 1920s. When the socialist revolution failed to materialise beyond the Soviet Union, Marxist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs tried to explain why. Their answer was that culture and religion blunted the proletariat’s desire to revolt, and the solution was that Marxists should carry out a “long march through the institutions” – universities and schools, government bureaucracies and the media – so that cultural values could be progressively changed from above.

Adapting this, later thinkers of the Frankfurt School decided that the key to destroying capitalism was to mix up Marx with a bit of Freud, since workers were not only economically oppressed, but made orderly by sexual repression and other social conventions. The problem was not only capitalism as an economic system, but the family, gender hierarchies, normal sexuality – in short, the whole suite of traditional western values.

The conspiracy theorists claim that these “cultural Marxists” began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2019 02:59AM by anybody.

Thankyou. I wouldlike to leave the door open to anyone who can cite Marx, since Idon’t think they can, but youhave enlightened me.

I would also note that that discussion offers no new evidence about genetics. So your extensive education and professional career remain safe.

I am sure you needed me to say that.

;-)

Das Kapital, if you had read it, is partly about social evolution. He also wrote quite a few other books, and short pieces.

But the reference was to Cultural Marxism, which is a phenomenon that arose some time after Marx. Cultural Marxism shifted the emphasis off the class struggle onto other "struggles", both real and manufactured, as a means to destroy capitalist society.

The Guardian should know what it is talking about since it is one of tbe chief organs which pushes cultural Marxism (as opposed to traditional Marxism).

Opposition to cultural Marxism is nothing to do with being anti-Jewish. These are two separate phenomena. Cultural Marxism in fact seeks to destroy Jewish identity in the long run. Most cultural Marxists see Judaism as patriarchal, and oppose the state of Israel.

So I was right.

Marx had nothing to say about genetics, Cultural Marxism is a term that has no basis in Marx and was conjured up by others, and has no meaning other than "I don't like that." It is a term like "fascism," "PC" and others that are simply ways of condemning something without argument or logic.

When we get to that point, there is nothing to rebut. Which makes sense because the arguments you proffer about race and genetics are nonsense. You are engaged in cultural fascism, pure and simple.

And by the way, I have read Capital.

In Marx's scheme, society is superstructure, not structure or substructure--and structure is the dependent variable and hence not Marx's focus.

The focus is on economics: a marriage of German philosophy, French political history, and British economics. But you know that, of course, because critics of Marxism have all read Capital. Right?

"Marx never discussed genetics and race."

Of course Marx never discussed genetics, because the ability to analyze DNA appeared long after he died.

So you think Marx and his close friend Friedrich Engels never discussed race or biological evolution, huh?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm

The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man

"The first operations for which our ancestors gradually learned to adapt their hands during the many thousands of years of transition from ape to man could have been only very simple ones..."

"It still rules them to such a degree that even the most materialistic natural scientists of the Darwinian school are still unable to form any clear idea of the origin of man, because under this ideological influence they do not recognise the part that has been played therein by labour."

See also "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State" by Engels which discusses this matter at great length.

Marx in a letter to Ferdinand Lassalle -

https://isreview.org/issue/65/marx-and-engelsand-darwin

"Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle"

However, Marx described Lasalle in a letter of 30 July 1862: 'It is now perfectly clear to me that, as the shape of his head and the growth of his hair indicates, he is descended from Negroes... This union of Jew and German on a Negro base was bound to produce an extraordinary hybrid.'

So you have found an aside by Marx, not in Capital or any of the other major works, in which he assumes that race has a genetic basis and that race determines physical characteristics.

Isn't that just what you personally have said? Race is a meaningful characteristic, white people's physical characteristics stem from admixture with Neanderthal blood? You and Marx are fellow travelers.

Since we've established that "cultural Marxism" is nothing more than a pejorative, to what should we attribute your agreement with Marx? Should we just consider you a Marxist?

You may consider me a Marxist.

I've always felt sorry for Zeppo; he's never anyone's favorite Marxist. Of course my favorite is Harpo.

Groucho, It's time to go clip your ear hair.

Would Harpism, and adherent Harpists, be an offshoot of Marxism?

Similarly, would adherents of Grouchism be Grouchists, or simply the Grouchiest Marxists?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2019 11:45AM by GregS.

I fear you are guilty of cultural Grouchyism.

Isn't that just another term for cynicism?

Yes, but for an idea to gain public acceptance and credibility, it must be joined with the word "cultural" and the suffix -ism.

I am culturally hungristic and desperately want to engage in neo-lunchism.

Meanwhile please knock it off with the quasi-cynicism, you cultural fascist!

Golly, that's rude.

[Translated from the original Babs Billingsley Jive dialect]

It's okay, GregS. Words like fascism have lost all meaning.

They are sort of like sticking your tongue out at someone.

If I were offended, I wouldn't have bothered with the translation. :)

Lot's Wife:

>
> They are sort of like sticking
> your tongue out at someone.
>

Which is not to be confused with licking your tongue out at someone.

You are so. . . reptilian!

Did you just fork him?

Be good, EB, or I'll sick GregS on you.

"Grrr!!!" *cough-cough* "Woof" *pant-pant-pant*

Scratch my belly?

GregS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scratch my belly?

As long as it isn't cleft.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Isn't that just what you personally have said?
> Race is a meaningful characteristic, white
> people's physical characteristics stem from
> admixture with Neanderthal blood?

Neanderthals occupied Europe and west Asia, had big noses, light skin and a wide variety of hair colors. It's been proven Eurasians have some Neanderthal DNA.

Like whites. But for some odd reason, we're not allowed to apply Occam's Razor here.

> Since we've established that "cultural Marxism" is
> nothing more than a pejorative, to

It's a movement which sets out to destabilize and collapse society by making it unmanageable through setting groups against each other. However, bizarrely, it also states there are no differences between people's latent abilities, which is clearly trash.

Cultural Marxism preaches "diversity", yet refuses to acknowledge humans' genuine diversity.

Marx didn't consider himself Marxist. No doubt Jesus wouldn't consider himself Christian. Cultural Marxism is several removes down the line - like comparing death metal with the blues.

Oh, definitely do apply Occam's razor. Just apply it on the basis of known facts, not arbitrarily and tendentiously to sheer those facts away.

Occam's razor leads to the conclusion that there is no such thing as race. The Neanderthal and Denisovan contributions to human characteristics are minimal, particularly since N & D shared common ancestors. Moreover there are lots of people in the East Asia with Neanderthal genes and others without any. These characteristics fall on a bell curve, as one would expect of any population group lacking hard divisions.

Occam's razor? Humans are mongrels within a single group, just like Irish setters and Pekinese. But in terms of genetics, those differences are tiny--the result of founder effects amplified by human breeding--and disappear after a few generations of random intermixing.

So unless you are willing to say that St. Bernards and Whippets are different "races," you can't consistently assert that human races are distinct. And if you did, by-passers would hear laughter emanating from Occam's hoary old grave.

Personally I think race is a lot like breeds in dogs. St.Bernards and Whippets have been selectively bred (hybridized)to have significantly different genetic characteristics, physical attributes and dispositions that perfectly suit the jobs they were bred to do. Despite their genetic differences, both breeds can interbreed, not that anybody would want a St. Whippet.
The same is true for humans.
We are all hybrids.
The only "purebred" modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) are Africans, who have zero Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in their makeup.
The rest of us are mutts.
Mixed with Neanderthals (3% average for non-Africans) and Denisovan (up to an additional 5% for Asians/American Indians/Melanesians)
And even Africans are hybridized humans, mostly Homo Sapiens Idaltu, mixed with up to 14 different sub species (breeds) of Homos with whom they co-existed over the million years humans have occupied Africa.

To get serious again (seriously!) I see much straining to swallow a flea, while camels go smoothly down the gullet.

Judic, what is the old man trying to say?

You mean like "man spreading" or maybe "caveman spreading"?

So here's the deal...

I don't mind believing that all the various 'strains' of hominids all came from Africa. Nor would I mind believing that some 'strains' originated outside of Africa.

Because neither belief alters who I am now. Since I'm Brown, I certainly have experience with the notion that White is Right. Would I rather be White? No, I'm good with things as they are.

And like so many, if I'm unhappy with how things are in the real world, I can always make up my own set of 'facts' to make me the hero of the story.

So there.

Jason's argument is that 1) races exist; 2) they are behaviorally and perhaps intellectually significant; and 3) Europeans arose from a combination of African with Neanderthal DNA while East Asians arose from a combination of African with Denisovan DNA.

Note the following.

First, "The analysis showed that Denisovans were much more closely related to Neanderthals than to Homo sapiens. . ." So one would expect that those who inherited either set of DNA would not differ very much. That leaves little room for claims that the "races" are significantly different, particularly because the distribution of Neanderthal genes, Denisovan genes, and a combination of the two are distributed along a normal curve rather than having any clear boundaries.

Second, "the new DNA sequence also shows that Native Americans and people from East Asia have more Neanderthal DNA, on average, than Europeans." It therefore makes no sense to say that Neanderthal DNA is what make the European "race." If that were true, Native Americans would be more European than Germans; and Fijians "whiter" than Britons.

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/60-1301/trenches/311-hominin-neanderthals-humans-siberia

Clearly those who believe in "cultural Marxism" would not last long if they ran into Occam in a dark alley.

Jason? Is it Friday already?

Yup.

[Closing the thread, now that the post count is 60.

Sweet dreams, everyone!!]