https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-earliest-evidence-of-tobacco-use-uncovered-in-utah-180978850/

Humans’ Earliest Evidence of Tobacco Use Uncovered in Utah
The charred seeds suggest that people used tobacco over 12,000 years ago—much earlier than previously thought.

LOL ~


wut ? ~

has anyone told the GAs / COB?

they'll want to know about this, I'm positive!!

I thought they smoked Clovis back then?

I do not find this difficult to accept since homo-sapiens were a genetic creation of ancient astronauts AKA Annunaki some 80,000 years ago according to Sumerian cunieform tablets

Good ol' Annunaki Richards and Annunaki Stewart! It was the best two years of their lives, being assigned to the Terran Mission right when it was opened!!

Good grief.

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not find this difficult to accept since
> homo-sapiens were a genetic creation of ancient
> astronauts AKA Annunaki some 80,000 years ago
> according to Sumerian cunieform tablets

So the Neanderthals, who existed in Europe for 300,000 years before we, Homo sapien sspiens branched off of the family tree, they were what?
This much is certain, and proven by DNA Evidence, we were closely related enough to Neanderthal to interbreed with them, so they were fully human, probably the same species as us, Homo sapiens neanddrthals, both of which branched off of an earlier branch on the tree of life.
We need to flush bogus myths down the toilet and just learn what it is our DNA is telling us,

Mapping the human genome and comparing it to Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA should have taught us
what the wise men and women have said all along, we are all one.
One race, the human race
One kind, humankind
And our job should be to enlarge our circle of compassion and empathy, which Darwin said was our greatest trait as humans.
One family, the human family
One species, Homo sapiens sspiens, wise wise men,
How many of us will ever live up to that aspirational name we gave ourselves.

I wonder why we have not listened to the story our DNA tells.
Then I listen to my co-workers who are ready to quit over being forced to take DEI training. And I remember, oh yeah, the whole Us vs Them false dichotomy is still alive and well right here, right now!
It’s killing us.
Our selfishness is literally making the US the very worst in the world at pandemic. Heart disease is the only thing we excel at more than Dying of Covid!
Some of us are just closer to troglodytes than others

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [We should know] what the wise men and women have said all along,
> we are all one. One race, the human race. One kind, humankind.

My how your position on race has changed. . .

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > what the wise men and women have said all
> along,
> > we are all one. One race, the human race. One
> kind, humankind.
>
> My how your position on race has changed. . .

My position on race has always been consistent with the story told by our DNA.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My position on race has always been consistent
> with the story told by our DNA.

Really? Ten minutes and the search function reveal a score of times when you've asserted with your usual aplomb precisely the opposite of what you now say.

Consider this sentence:

"People who say theres only one race totally ignore Neanderthal DNA in non Africans and even more signoficant Denisovan DNA in Asians."

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2239882,2240152#msg-2240152


-----------------
Or this. . .

". . . there is definitely significant genetic distinction between races. Eurasians are on average 3% Neanderthal, Asians are on average 4% Denisovan and Africans are neither. "

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2231999,2232152#msg-2232152


-------------------
Or, in answer to a poster alleging that race is a not a biologically meaningful concept, your passage here:

"If you have Neanderthal DNA you are Eurasian. If you don't you are African. If you have Denisovan DNA you are Asian or Melanesian. If you don't you are not. . . How is that not obvious?"

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2238941,2239291#msg-2239291


--------------
Or, again referring to the Neanderthal and Denisovan contributions to, respectively, Europeans and Asians. . .

"There in lies the huge scientific basis for different races."

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2238941,2239245#msg-2239245


----------------
Then there's this:

"Europeans are a hybrid mix of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthals. Asians are a hybrid mix between Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans."

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2238941,2239300#msg-2239300


----------------
Has the story told by the DNA reversed over the last two years or is it your understanding of that evidence that has changed? If the latter, why can't you acknowledge that you were wrong and learned something new?

There's no shame in learning.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2021 06:57PM by Lot's Wife.

Saying, ‘Therevis only one race, the human race.’ Acknowledges what mapping the human genome has revealed, the fact that we are 99.9% genetically identical. So when we are discussing racial differences, they only account for the most superficial 1/10th of 1% of what makes us appear different. So that means we are all 99.9% African.
Despite the fact Eurasians are 2% Neanderthal and Asians/Melanesians are an additional 3% Denisovan.

So how does that math work out?

Neanderthals and Denisovans were far more closely related to Homo sapiens sapiens than Chimpanzees and bonobos, who are 98.8% genetically identical to us. We can’t interbreed with bonobos or chimps mainly because we dropped a chromosome about 3 million years ago.

We branched off from Neanderthal and Denisovans much more recently.

I think the word ‘race’ is I’ll defined. Perhaps it should be thought of as something like ‘breeds’ like with cats, dogs, chickens, horses, cows, pigs, etc. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane look like completely different animals but they are actually only slightly genetically different and can interbreed.
Same with wolves and coyotes. Or lions and tigers.

Not that lions are genetically superior to tigers, just different, ever so slightly.

Word salad.

How many races are there, Kori? Three as you said for years or one as you say now?

I accept the fact the US Census defines race as

https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

"The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically....
.....White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander."

But how do you define the word, 'race'?

Webster's defines it: "any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry"

But the word 'species' is not even well defined,

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/species/

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring. However, the classification of a species can be difficult—even riddled with controversy.

From the color of your hair to the shape of your toes, you are distinctly human. Humans look very different from one another, yet we are all members of the same species, homo sapiens. A species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring. While that definition seems straightforward, the classification of a species can be difficult and at times riddled with controversy.

Some organisms easily fit into this definition of a species, but many do not. Asexual organisms have only one parent, so they do not reproduce with each other. Some organisms commonly reproduce with similar species in the wild, forming genetic hybrids."

We're all hybrids.

The only 'purebred' homo sapiens sapiens are Africans, who's ancestors never made it out of Africa to interbreed with the other sub-species of homo sapiens, like Neanderthals and Denisovans, and other species that pre-dated homo sapiens sapiens by hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

We are all mutts, hybrids.

https://www.businessinsider.com/dragon-man-china-fossil-related-humans-neanderthals-2021-6#:~:text=Anthropologists%20found%20a%20146%2C000%2Dyear,to%20modern%20humans%20than%20Neanderthals.

Dragon Man is actually looking pretty good.

Obviously I need to get out more.

But. COVID.

Word salad.

You're spinning. You posted years ago, time and again, that Asians are a combination of HSS and Denisovans; Europeans are a combination of HSS and Neanderthals; and Africans are pure HSS. All of that is false. Every single assertion.

Then in this thread you initially said that Neanderthal, Denisovan, and HSS DNA prove that "we are all one. One race, the human race." Those are your words. Yet now you reverse course yet again, declaring that you accept the US Census definition of "races."

Thus you want it both ways. You want there to be one human race when you feel like it but also multiple races when that's more convenient. You tell us to follow the DNA but then say you follow the US Census. It's just word salad.

In another of your myriad daily threads you sent us to the inevitable, the inexorable, Bill Maher, source of all wisdom in the S-cat world. He and his guests complain that words no longer have set meanings--and you celebrate them for that perspective, not realizing that you do in this and other threads precisely what they condemn.

Who are you, S-cat? What views do you hold that remain the same for longer than two hours?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Word salad.

Bullshit.

>
> You're spinning.

No I’m not. You don’t understand.

You posted years ago, time and
> again, that Asians are a combination of HSS and
> Denisovans; Europeans are a combination of HSS and
> Neanderthals; and Africans are pure HSS. All of
> that is false. Every single assertion.

Not according to scientists who mapped the Neanderthal and Denisovans DNA.

https://www.mpg.de/13894984/neandertal-genome-project

https://www.mpg.de/15012186/infographics-neandertal?c=17089995

https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/article/more-neanderthal-dna-than-you-think


>
> Then in this thread you initially said that
> Neanderthal, Denisovan, and HSS DNA prove that "we
> are all one. One race, the human race."

Those are not mutually exclusive. We are all hybrids.
Even Africans are hybrids of the 16 different sub species of humans, homo we co-existed with when we were only Homo sapiens Idaltu, the first Wise Man.

Those are
> your words. Yet now you reverse course yet again,
> declaring that you accept the US Census definition
> of "races."

I accept that the Government uses a common social meaning of the word, race, how people self identify. They don’t use a biological or genetic test. But those tests are available and they tell you how much Neanderthal or Denisovans DNA you have. It’s a very predictable test and reinforces what the experts say, like the Neanderthal Genome Project.

> Thus you want it both ways. You want there to be
> one human race

I think you are way to hung up on the word, ‘race’.
Call it hybrid.
Just like a hybrid of a lion and a Tiger makes a liger.
A hybrid of an African Homo Sspiens and a Neanderthal is a European. Mix a European with a Denisovan you get an Asian. Mix an Asian with a Dragon Man you get a Northern Asian.

when you feel like it but also
> multiple races when that's more convenient. You
> tell us to follow the DNA but then say you follow
> the US Census. It's just word salad.
>
> In another of your myriad daily threads you sent
> us to the inevitable, the inexorable, Bill Maher,
> source of all wisdom in the S-cat world.

I was actually talking about a #1 Bestselling Author on Amazon who is also a linguist and a professor at Columbia, and Andrew Yang, not Bill Maher, but you wouldn’t know because Real Time is too lowbrow for your refined Elizabethan tastes!

He and
> his guests complain that words no longer have set
> meanings--and you celebrate them for that
> perspective, not realizing that you do in this and
> other threads precisely what they condemn.

I agree with Jonah McWhorter 100%, Bill Maher about 90% and Andrew Yang about 80%.

> Who are you, S-cat? What views do you hold that
> remain the same for longer than two hours?

I’ve always agreed with John McWhorter and his student, Coleman Hughes and I have spoken highly of both of them many times in the past. Then And Glenn Lowrey.

NONE of those sources ties Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA to races. You made that shit up. Every one of those sources deny that "races" even exist. They prove that you don't know what you are talking about.

Meanwhile I'm glad you like Maher again. It was only a couple of weeks ago that you told us you'd lost your respect for him. I guess he got much smarter in the intervening days.

I don't know why anyone bothers. You contradict yourself as frequently as most people change their underwear, and you lack the honesty to admit it. So we all see you spinning like a top, laugh for a while, and then are subjected to the next bombardment of half-digested links to Wikipedia, Youtube, and TV shows.

Who are you? Is there anything in you that remains the same from day to day?

"...other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

I don't think J. W. Boothe ever displayed any regret, so . . .

I won't believe anything you say until you provide a link to Wikipedia, Bill Maher, or Alfred Einstein.*

















*It's okay if the source contradicts your point or is completely irrelevant.

I was using tobacco one year B4 I was baptized.

My dad got 2 free packs of Pall Mall cigarettes in the mail back in the late 60's. I think they were giving them away to attract new addicts....I mean customers. How nice.

He tossed then in the fire place where they sat for a couple weeks.

I was 7 years old and I decided I wanted to try one, so I carefully open one pack and took a cigarette, then put the pack back in the fireplace. I walked about a block away into the woods and fired it up. I didn't know you're supposed to inhale so I just puffed on it in my mouth.

I wasn't very impressed, and I tried tobacco a few more times growing up and it always made me feel sick, so I never took to it. Glad for that!

I tried it once, on a sunny afternoon in 1955, on a hillside in Nacozari, Sonora, with some other cheerful Spanish-speaking cherubs. One of the group had borrowed a pack of Mexican cigarettes, the kind with multiple ingredients to make the actual tobacco stretch further...

I didn't like it and never tried it again. As a profound cheap-ass Introvert, I felt no need to attempt to be cool, or hot, or whatever.

But at least I can tell the intake nurse when she's going through the medical questions: "Do you smoke or have you smoked?", I regal her with the above story, often throwing in some made-up drama in case her day has been slow.