https://youtu.be/Kl_awqIZbpA

Completely missing from these competing theories is the fact that the DNA of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans has been compared and it's been determined that Eurasians have about 2% on average Neanderthal DNA and Asians/Melanesians have an additional 4% on average Denisovan DNA and Africans have very little of either.
So the answer is obvious. Homo Sapiens Sapiens interbred with multiple different species. It's not a theory. We're all hybrids. Before we left from Africa we probably mixed with the 16 other different species of Homo's that co-existed with us in Africa, meaning, even Africans are hybrids.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06004-0



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2020 02:26PM by schrodingerscat.

Are you a hybrid of your mom and dad? Or do you consider yourself to be a purebred?

Hybrid Winner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you a hybrid of your mom and dad? Or do you
> consider yourself to be a purebred?

They're the same species.

Absolutely, definitely, without a doubt



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2020 02:54PM by thedesertrat1.

This fits right in with my ancient astronaugt theories for which I am so infamous here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2020 03:41PM by thedesertrat1.

We're running more necessary DNA testing on additional samples as we speak.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5hilIuS2G2U&list=PL7CGup6er13kMtwgIcusW7sUzO3SZMeix&index=1

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OxduX1p16Ls&list=PL7CGup6er13kMtwgIcusW7sUzO3SZMeix&index=3

When I got my ancestry stuff done, I was way beyond disappointed to find out that I didn't have so much as a speck of Neanderthal back in the family tree.

After reading "Clan of the Cave Bear" all those years ago, I thought they were kind of exotic.

I'm totally UK/Eastern European up-tighty whitey.

Kinda boring.

Catnip, the report was wrong. You can't have British and Eastern European ancestry and not be part Neanderthal. If you have the test done again by some outfit that is looking for Neanderthal DNA, you'll get the predicted 2-4% result.

Your background is no more "boring" than that of any other northern European.

It wouldn't be the first time that a breed of mammal bred with other like mammals, producing a hybrid over time. I think we're still infected with the idea that Neanderthals were stupid, brutish cavemen that carried big clubs to score a woman. They had slightly different facial features (receding chin), but a larger brain, and it could be that they were quite, or even more, intelligent than sapiens sapiens, just such a small group that they were easy to absorb by another, much larger group. I hear their women were actually hot.

That's the point of the video. Turns out, upon further evidence that Neanderthals cared for their sick, old and wounded. They painted paintings, did sculpture and would have fit right in on the set of Mad Max.

Their women preferred bad boy humans to the point their race died out. Neanderthal dudes were too nice.

after that fifth beer even the Neanderthals start looking good.

Obviously not as excited about this pet topic of yours.

The more the drummer boy thumps the better the comments become. This was entertaining.

They lost the Cro-Magnon wars.

My old man brain kept reading Neanderthal as Neatherlands. What? Something happened to the Dutch?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the answer is obvious. Homo Sapiens Sapiens
> interbred with multiple different species. It's
> not a theory. We're all hybrids. Before we left
> from Africa we probably mixed with the 16 other
> different species of Homo's that co-existed with
> us in Africa, meaning, even Africans are hybrids.

There is a fundamental misconception here based upon a failure to define and identify a "species" as a natural kind rather than just a heuristic device within evolutionary biology and population genetics. This is a version of old "race" distinctions that also fail to establish race as a natural kind, rather than a loosely defined social construct. Fortunately, we do not have to worry about discriminatory social policies towards Neanderthals and Denisovans--or do we?

In any event here are a couple of quotes to consider from the book, The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species:
____________________________________________

"Because biologists disagree on the proper definition of the species category, they disagree on the proper taxonomy of the biological world. This is no small disagreement, nor is it a transitory one. Since Linnaeus, biologists have disagreed on the nature of species. . . The controversy surrounding the species category has not diminished . In the last twenty-five years, well over a hundred books and articles have appeared on the nature of species. Those publications offer more than twenty definitions of the species category."

"Do all species taxa share a common defining property? Must real categories have such defining properties?"

"The question of realism arises at a different level as well. Not only is there concern over the reality of the species category but also over whether species taxa exist. . . Rarely are traits found that occur in all and only the members of a particular species taxon. Furthermore, even if such traits did occur, the forces of evolution can destroy their uniqueness or universality. [Citations omitted] . . .
Ghiselin and Hull, however, have responded that the reality of species taxa does not turn on the existence of essential properties. Membership in a species, they contend, depends on the organisms of a species having certain spatialtemporal relations to one another rather than on their sharing a common essential property."
_________________________________________

In other words, given the "interbreeding" you highlight, it may be time to reconsider the Homo Sapiens taxa. But in any event, your use of the word "hybrid" reminds me of the word "mulatto," a race-baiting term that is of little use in population genetics. (IMHO)

But being a hybrid is cooling than just owning one.

A duolatto is a the offspring of two parents of different primary colors!!

Then two duolattos mating can produce the coveted mulatto offspring. Seriously, just do the maths!

I'm a monkey's uncle.

Yes, but that's beside the point.

What really matters is whether you drink duolattes.

I'm thinking about it.

https://www.picuki.com/tag/duolatte

No, you are a supplement elderberry.

Ok that was a bad joke but every time I see elderberry in the supplement aisle I think about your screen name.

I admit that I clicked on this thread to see what old dog would say to koriwhore. Usually you can bet it will be funny.

Where does the muffuletta enter into it?

What I've learned from this thread is never to joke about the name of a coffee product. For no matter what the word, there is some espresso derivative somewhere that is called by it.

More than once, actually :-/

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More than once, actually :-/
OK just one more time you neanderthal you!!!

There was one living in Morocco in the 1930s to 1970s, or someone who looked very like one. He had the sloping forehead, didn't wear clothes, ate raw meat and lived in a cave. Some people said he was microencephalic, but he retained other hominid traits like long arms, and also an ape-like gait.

https://www.soulask.com/the-mystery-of-azzo-bassou-nicknamed-the-planets-last-neanderthal/

I love that site: "soul ask."

But I'm having trouble getting past the section on "aliens" to your "last of the Neanderthals." An embarrassment of riches, I fear!

I believe that at one point, Azzo was hired as an advisor by GEICO Insurance, n'cest pas?

No, that was Azzo's cousin in West Hollywood who works as a producer for Real Time with Bill Maher.

What happened was they didn't accept Joe Jr. as a profit so the were extinguished!!!

It's comforting to know that it's all part of The Plan.

Give, said the little gene, give oh give.

That's a great article: Neanderthals' demise due to 1) adverse climatic change, 2) the disappearance of the food sources they were best at exploiting, and 3) inbreeding.

Also lots of good analysis of the similarities between HSS and Neanderthals. If the latter could indeed manage language, as seems to me a credible postulate, then it's possible the two groups communicated with each other.

As for "screwing Neanderthals into oblivion," I'm not sure what that even means. Take any human being--say, [|]--or group of human beings, and watch what happens as the generations pass. That human/group's DNA gets further and further diluted and many of its maladaptive genes are purged entirely. After 20 or 30,000 years, all that is left of [|]'s genetic code is 2-4%. Does that mean [|] has grown oblivious? What happened to him was the perfectly natural result of his successful reproduction at the start of the process.

Do we then say that [|] went extinct? All individuals go extinct, and species evolve and separate or merge together again. If you want to call that extinction, fine, but those selfish genes are still around.

Many is the time I've been oblivious.

Just as long as you have not gone extinct and failed to tell us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2020 08:24PM by Lot's Wife.

When I've delved into family genealogy, I've sometimes wondered how far back you can go and realistically call those people family. Four or five generations back, sure. But when you get to 10-12 generations, I'm less convinced. Yes, you are related, but how closely?

Okay, that's as good an answer as any; the reality is at this point, scientists aren't certain and debate persists. The genetic evidence shows interbreeding between the two hominids, and "sorting out" the details is problematic. Here's a sample:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-scientists-discovered-the-staggering-complexity-of-human-evolution/

>>In the late 1990s geneticists began recovering small amounts of DNA from Neandertal and early H. sapiens fossils. Eventually they succeeded in getting entire genomes not only from Neandertals and early H. sapiens but also from Denisovans, who are known from just a few fragmentary fossils from Siberia and Tibet. By comparing these ancient genomes with modern ones, researchers have found evidence that our own species interbred with these other species. People today carry DNA from Neandertals and Denisovans as a result of these long-ago encounters. Other studies have found evidence of interbreeding between H. sapiens and unknown extinct hominins from Africa and Asia for whom we have no fossils but whose distinctive DNA persists.

>>Mating with other human species may have aided H. sapiens' success... Although scientists have yet to figure out the functions of most of the genes people today carry from extinct hominins, they have pinpointed a few, and the results are intriguing. For instance, Neandertals gave H. sapiens immunity genes that may have helped our species fend off novel pathogens it encountered in Eurasia, and Denisovans contributed a gene that helped people adapt to high altitudes. H. sapiens may be the last hominin standing, but it got a leg up from its extinct cousins.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, that's as good an answer as any; the reality
> is at this point, scientists aren't certain and
> debate persists. The genetic evidence shows
> interbreeding between the two hominids, and
> "sorting out" the details is problematic. Here's a
> sample:
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-sci
> entists-discovered-the-staggering-complexity-of-hu
> man-evolution/
>
> >>In the late 1990s geneticists began recovering
> small amounts of DNA from Neandertal and early H.
> sapiens fossils. Eventually they succeeded in
> getting entire genomes not only from Neandertals
> and early H. sapiens but also from Denisovans, who
> are known from just a few fragmentary fossils from
> Siberia and Tibet. By comparing these ancient
> genomes with modern ones, researchers have found
> evidence that our own species interbred with these
> other species. People today carry DNA from
> Neandertals and Denisovans as a result of these
> long-ago encounters. Other studies have found
> evidence of interbreeding between H. sapiens and
> unknown extinct hominins from Africa and Asia for
> whom we have no fossils but whose distinctive DNA
> persists.
>
> >>Mating with other human species may have aided
> H. sapiens' success... Although scientists have
> yet to figure out the functions of most of the
> genes people today carry from extinct hominins,
> they have pinpointed a few, and the results are
> intriguing. For instance, Neandertals gave H.
> sapiens immunity genes that may have helped our
> species fend off novel pathogens it encountered in
> Eurasia, and Denisovans contributed a gene that
> helped people adapt to high altitudes. H. sapiens
> may be the last hominin standing, but it got a leg
> up from its extinct cousins.

I agree resistance was futile and they were "assimilated" like the Denisovans and the hybrid NeanderthalDenisovans. Among others.

All this suggests that the term "species" is dynamic and fluid, and does not reflect stable categories. A "species" does not simply come to be, and then go extinct, it assimilates with other "species." However, once that is recognized, in hindsight thousands of years later, one has to ask whether what has been assimilated was a "species," or just a set of genes--especially when reproductive isolation fails as the defining property of a "species."

>>Africans carry a surprising amount of Neanderthal DNA

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/africans-carry-surprising-amount-neanderthal-dna

>>The researchers found that African individuals on average had significantly more Neanderthal DNA than previously thought—about 17 megabases (Mb) worth, or 0.3% of their genome. They also found signs that a handful of Neanderthal genes may have been selected for after they entered Africans’ genomes, including genes that boost immune function and protect against ultraviolet radiation.

>>The results jibe with as-yet-unpublished work by Sarah Tishkoff, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania. She told Science she has also found higher-than-expected levels of apparent Neanderthal DNA in Africans.

One possibility:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD8IPzypuQ8

They [Neanderthals] were simply outnumbered by the Homo sapiens...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2020 06:04PM by SL Cabbie.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One possibility:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD8IPzypuQ8
>
> They were simply outnumbered by the Homo
> sapiens...

Not just Neanderthals, but every other sub-species of humans, were absorbed into the one remaining sub-species of humans.

It's clear that there were many different sub-groups of humans. It could be 15; it could be 30; it could be 50. It is entirely possible that some such groups died off without contributing to who HSS are.

True, but I'm just talking about the 16 other sub species of humans that we have identified through the fossil record.

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

Of course there are many more that we do not have fossil records of, but we do have latent DNA for, in our own DNA.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51508616

But the question remains, if there are 16 different genetically distinct 'sub-species' (lineages) of humans, besides HSS, many of whom we already know contributed to the DNA of HSS, then how is race (lineage) meaningless?

> then
> how is race (lineage) meaningless?

A good place to start is the meaning of "race." I don't think you can formulate any scientifically meaningful definition.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > then
> > how is race (lineage) meaningless?
>
> A good place to start is the meaning of "race." I
> don't think you can formulate any scientifically
> meaningful definition.

That's right! But, the same applies to formulating a scientifically meaningful definition of "species" and "sub-species." That said, what *is* scientifically meaningful is the establishment of heuristic biological and genetic categories for purposes of statistical analysis, and not as a source for natural kinds. That this applies to "race" as well.

I did not use the words "species" or "sub-species." You are arguing with someone else, not me.

>It's clear that there were many different sub-groups of humans. >It could be 15; it could be 30; it could be 50.

O.K. then, so tell me what defines a "sub-group" of humans? How is one such "sub-group" differentiated from another? The answer must be based upon genetic similarities and differences as abstracted from individual genomes within populations. But isn't the answer to such a question quite arbitrary, depending upon how one chooses to draw the genetic line? And won't drawing that line be biased in favor of HSS populations as known today? So, again, just what are the defining genes, or the genome, for inclusion in HSS? Or, put in another way, what are the defining phenotypes or traits?

To drive the point home, are Asians and Africans "sub-groups" of HHS, or are they just members of HSS that happen to have certain notable genetic and phenotypic differences?

That's why I used the words "groups" and "sub-groups" rather than "races."

Your observation should be addressed to Kori, not me.

My point applies to you as well! That is what you (and others) don't seem to see! You cannot avoid the "race" issue by switching to "groups" and "sub-groups," or "species" and "sub-species" while maintaining that such groups or species represent genuine natural genetic categories.

Then give me a scientifically meaningful definition of "race" or "species," both of which I have avoided.

I can define "group" any way I want; it can mean apples versus tomatoes or grape tomatoes versus heirloom tomatoes versus Roma tomatoes. I can define Britons as people living in Britain even if they are black or Indian or Anglo-Saxon. Those definitions work because I get to determine them.

I cannot define the terms "race" or "species" in scientifically meaningful ways. Can you?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then give me a scientifically meaningful
> definition of "race" or "species," both of which I
> have avoided.

You said:

"It's clear that there were many different sub-groups of humans. It could be 15; it could be 30; it could be 50. It is entirely possible that some such groups died off without contributing to who HSS are."

You cannot avoid "species" and "race" by substituting "groups" and "subgroups" and then treating such groups as natural biological kinds in the context of genetics. That is only a change in words; the problem remains.

> I can define "group" any way I want; it can mean
> apples versus tomatoes or grape tomatoes versus
> heirloom tomatoes versus Roma tomatoes. I can
> define Britons as people living in Britain even if
> they are black or Indian or Anglo-Saxon. Those
> definitions work because I get to determine them.

Once you do that; i.e. make it all about your preference, it loses scientific significance, and makes your point as stated above entirely vacuous.

> I cannot define the terms "race" or "species" in
> scientifically meaningful ways. Can you?

Of course. "Race" can be defined heuristically as a category of cultural and ethnic identifications useful in creating data for social policy. "Species" is defined (for our purposes, say) as any biological group that is reproductively or geographically isolated. Both definitions are scientifically meaningful within some context, but neither represent natural kinds.

Race is only appearance..