|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 24, 2014 7:54:39 GMT -5
Hit me up if you have anymore questions.
|
|
rivertemz
Scribe
The thirst for Knowledge is strong in this one
Posts: 211
|
Post by rivertemz on Apr 24, 2014 13:24:37 GMT -5
djoser-xyyman Well I'm not offended by you correcting me, I needed to understand your perspective on this field clearly,so I'm just absorbing this research, I did come across one comment you mentioned already about the absence of actual admixture of Eurasians with the Neanderthal genes that was just considered ? So if this research contradicts that well-known theory, then it should change a lot of things. First of all this research on the Neanderthal gene has been propagated a lot on science journals, several discovery documentaries and it's so hard to grasp how much of an impact this update could be and when would it be recognised. Has it been peer-reviewed and broadly accepted in this science field ? And is there any upcoming public seminars on this new angle in evolutionary traces? I'm so ready to share it with people I know, friends that have stuck to this idea that they have Neanderthal genes, so just to be completely sure.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 24, 2014 13:34:37 GMT -5
To those who are interested. Reading through the Supplementals, are they saying Neanderthals are really that dumb. Fortunately Africans are not dumb.(sic) Although talking to a few makes one question my belief. Right Mike?!. …..Maybe the dumb ones carry the Neanderthal gene(ie codes for alanine. Lol!)
From the recent study: === A particularly interesting SNC is a C-to-T mutation (chr22:40760978) in position 429 of the ADSL gene (C-terminal domain). The site is homozygous for the ancestral allele in Vindija, Sidron, Altai Neandertal and Denisova, and codes for alanine, while the derived allele in present-day humans codes for valine and is completely fixed. The position is highly conserved for the ancestral state in primates (conservation score = 0.953), has a highly positive GERP score (5.67), and the ancestral amino acid is conserved across multiple tetrapods, including rhesus, mouse, dog, elephant, opossum and chicken. The amino acid position is three residues away from the most common SNP known to cause adenylosuccinase deficiency, which produces PSYCHOMOTOR DELAY, autism, epilepsy and MENTAL RETARDATION (38, 39) suggesting that particular FEATURES OF COGNITIVE FUNCTION could be associated with this change.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 24, 2014 13:50:07 GMT -5
Pop culture…..Egyptians are Caucasians…..ie Europeans……..get my point? The forum is not about what you see or hear on the radio or National Geographics.. 95% of the masses get their info from pop culture. Your job to your friends and to your self is to educate yourself.
What I am saying is NOT new. There are many scientist that do NOT believe in Neaderthal admixture. I guess you did not read the thread.
Don’t take my word for it. Read the thread and you would understand…hopefully. As I said there are two camps on the issue of Neanderthal admixture. So far the populist view is there was admixture. There are other studies showing there was NOT any admixture. The naying sayers, are gaining ground. If you read through the thread you would recognize the many scientist who are in the negative. Hope you understand.
Oh. And I don’t expect the media to change rhetoric. There is a lot of money to be made. “do you want to know how much Neanderthal is in you?” (sic). 23andme said I have 3% Neanderthal. Lol!
|
|
rivertemz
Scribe
The thirst for Knowledge is strong in this one
Posts: 211
|
Post by rivertemz on Apr 24, 2014 13:50:19 GMT -5
I've always kept a glance away from the supposed evolutionary divergence of several homo-species from a common ancestor. I still keep the conservative belief that homo sapiens didn't share biological and genetic relations to any other species other than chimps,apes and monkeys. That we may have evolved from our developing beginnings, but our origins didn't diverge into separate species, but instead had variances within our own species, which in turn led to natural selection. So instead, part of our (small)pioneering population lost many alleles/phenotypes etc. that won't be found in modern homo sapiens (with fewer variances alleles than before) due to certain events (bottle-neck and founders effect). Things such as skull size, spine structure, mitochondrial dna, hair texture, eye colour; may have been a lot more diverse in the first population of our species.
I don't believe we can get the full picture here with just fossil records, isn't that part of the Hardy-Weinberg theorem. I will still be naive to this field of science, because many things change in research as our technology with reading this data advances.
|
|
rivertemz
Scribe
The thirst for Knowledge is strong in this one
Posts: 211
|
Post by rivertemz on Apr 24, 2014 13:53:31 GMT -5
Pop culture…..Egyptians are Caucasians…..ie Europeans……..get my point? The forum is not about what you see or hear on the radio or National Geographics.. 95% of the masses get their info from pop culture. Your job to your friends and to your self is to educate yourself. What I am saying is NOT new. There are many scientist that do NOT believe in Neaderthal admixture. I guess you did not read the thread. Don’t take my word for it. Read the thread and you would understand…hopefully. As I said there are two camps on the issue of Neanderthal admixture. So far the populist view is there was admixture. There are other studies showing there was NOT any admixture. The naying sayers, are gaining ground. If you read through the thread you would recognize the many scientist who are in the negative. Hope you understand. Oh. And I don’t expect the media to change rhetoric. There is a lot of money to be made. “do you want to know how much Neanderthal is in you?” (sic). 23andme said I have 3% Neanderthal. Lol! Yes I will read this thread thoroughly, Im just trying to pick out the key things you highlight, sorry I've been a bit busy lately, so I'm not active enough on the site that's why my comments seem a bit vague.
|
|
rivertemz
Scribe
The thirst for Knowledge is strong in this one
Posts: 211
|
Post by rivertemz on Apr 24, 2014 13:56:49 GMT -5
Pop culture…..Egyptians are Caucasians…..ie Europeans……..get my point? The forum is not about what you see or hear on the radio or National Geographics.. 95% of the masses get their info from pop culture. Your job to your friends and to your self is to educate yourself. What I am saying is NOT new. There are many scientist that do NOT believe in Neaderthal admixture. I guess you did not read the thread. Don’t take my word for it. Read the thread and you would understand…hopefully. As I said there are two camps on the issue of Neanderthal admixture. So far the populist view is there was admixture. There are other studies showing there was NOT any admixture. The naying sayers, are gaining ground. If you read through the thread you would recognize the many scientist who are in the negative. Hope you understand. Oh. And I don’t expect the media to change rhetoric. There is a lot of money to be made. “do you want to know how much Neanderthal is in you?” (sic). 23andme said I have 3% Neanderthal. Lol! Uggh I'm just sick and tired of the propaganda and it annoys me to realize not all theories taught in schools and colleges are even accepted by a % of revised scholars. Where do we draw the line with what is scientific fact and what is still a theory
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 12:54:14 GMT -5
Nope. The ancestral skin colour was white or light pink. Humans only gradually became darker brown hued through hairlessness, but even African AMH were quite hairy and not black. Check any expert on this subject (e.g. Jablonski). AMH are likened to the light sallow-brown tones found commonly within the San people. In other words AMH were barely darker than South Europeans. Dark brown or black skin only appeared much later, probably in historic times.
You have human evolution of pigmentation backwards. The ancestral colour was white and it got darker, not vice-versa.
Black skin probably is as young as 5,000 years. AMH through to Upper Palaeolithic were light brown, not really dark. It can only be mental illness among Afrocentrists that distort all these facts.
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Apr 25, 2014 16:42:45 GMT -5
do other primates have white or light pink skin or black skin
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Apr 25, 2014 17:17:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 25, 2014 21:22:48 GMT -5
Shooo! stop buzzzzzing in my ear. Apparently this was out since 2012. That is why the suthor I cited made such a statement. Apparently it is common knowledge that Neanderthal and Denisovans were black skinned. Wow! I just came across yet another study that confirmed my speculation….both Neaderthal and Denisovan had black skin pigmentation! Damn. I am good.! @ rs1426654 both(Neanderthal and Denisovan) are ancestral like La Brana. The world is coming to an end…..I just can’t keep up. Predicting homo pigmentation phenotype through genomic data: From neanderthal to James Watson - Nope. The ancestral skin colour was white or light pink. Humans only gradually became darker brown hued through hairlessness, but even African AMH were quite hairy and not black. Check any expert on this subject (e.g. Jablonski). AMH are likened to the light sallow-brown tones found commonly within the San people. In other words AMH were barely darker than South Europeans. Dark brown or black skin only appeared much later, probably in historic times. You have human evolution of pigmentation backwards. The ancestral colour was white and it got darker, not vice-versa. .
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 25, 2014 21:25:05 GMT -5
Now go bury your head in the sand. LOL Notice Gokhem2 is deceptively labeled as "fairer" but his ratio is 6/11. Yes, he is lighter than the others thus fairer. But by modern statndards he is Black. He carried more ancestral SNPs for dark skin than light skin. The games these people play. why don't you address that?
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 25, 2014 21:28:17 GMT -5
Delusional.!! lol! you don't know what your are talking about..do you? Nope. The ancestral skin colour was white or light pink. Humans only gradually became darker brown hued through hairlessness, but even African AMH were quite hairy and not black. Check any expert on this subject (e.g. Jablonski). AMH are likened to the light sallow-brown tones found commonly within the San people. In other words AMH were barely darker than South Europeans. Dark brown or black skin only appeared much later, probably in historic times. You have human evolution of pigmentation backwards. The ancestral colour was white and it got darker, not vice-versa. Black skin probably is as young as 5,000 years. AMH through to Upper Palaeolithic were light brown, not really dark. It can only be mental illness among Afrocentrists that distort all these facts.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 25, 2014 21:39:16 GMT -5
Address this also, Ha! Ha! delusional liars. Black Neanderthal and Denisovan!!! Predicting homo pigmentation phenotype through genomic data: From neanderthal to James Watson -
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 25, 2014 21:51:13 GMT -5
I should be paid for this ...
For the newbies. I will post more details when I get time. bye
I am off the ledge...Neaderthal was black skinned. Any questions? Surprisingly this hasn't made more news.
|
|