|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 28, 2014 19:20:12 GMT -5
I am losing my mind This article was published on-line since March 2012. Over two years ago!!!. It is really surprising that it is not talked about more. Really surprising. With all the hoopla about Neanderthal admixture no one seemed to mention that Neanderthal and Denisovan were black skinned. Man, as I said this is really getting hilarious. What do we have. The infamous white genes are SLC 45A2 and SLC24A5, along with MC1r and ASIP, TYP and Herc2(eyes and skin) at the corresponding SNPs. In ALL instances Neanderthals carry the ancestral forms at the respective SNP. So if Melanesians and Yoruba are black that makes Neanderthal and Denisovan black. So based upon the data published in the report. Neanderthals and Denisovans are as black…brown….tawny ..tan as Yorubas…..Ha! Ha! Ha! Now why isn’t this making big news. These ancient Homo carry the exact skin pigmentation profile as some Yorubas and Melanesia. See below. ..ignorance is truly bliss. Predicting homo pigmentation phenotype through genomic data: From Neanderthal to James Watson - 12 MAR 2012
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 29, 2014 4:46:20 GMT -5
I am “throwing up” laughing. Ha! Ha! HA! Is Neanderthal Black or ….brown or tawny. Ha! Ha! Let the delusion continue. You people are so idiotic and illogical. Can’t tell your head from your azz. Ha!
Any comments…Ben?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 23:33:50 GMT -5
Large parts of Europe were not occupied until as recent as the Mesolithic. Early settlement was restricted to the south because of the inhospitable glaciers that covered the north. Iberia served as a main refuge area for Neanderthals. So why would Neanderthals be pale white? It is not out of place at all they were a light brown or "tawny" colour - like most south europeans today. In case you hadn't noticed, very few Europeans are literal pale white/light pink in skin colour. This was recognized by Benjamin Franklin who suggested in 1751 that since the number of white skinned Europeans was very small, America ought to exclude the darker peoples of Europe including the Italians, Spaniards etc. Antonio Carluccio and Gennaro Contaldo [img src=" chrisneillsdirtykitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/antonio-and-gennaro.jpg" src="" style="max-width:100%;"] Neanderthal
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 30, 2014 4:45:01 GMT -5
Right! tawny like Yoruba's . So why would Neanderthals be pale white? It is not out of place at all they were a light brown or "tawny" colour - like most south europeans today. img src="http://www.archeolog-home.com/medias/images/1-neanderthal.jpg" style="max-width:100%;"]
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 30, 2014 8:31:44 GMT -5
This is hilarious…Black, Brown Tawny. BTW the researchers said he is black like Africans. The media says he is tawny. The reseearchers said he had non-brown/black eyes. The media says he had blue eyes. Ha! www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546421/Blue-eyed-caveman-7-000-year-old-DNA-reveals-European-African-traits.html======= WAS THIS THE FIRST BLUE-EYED MAN? 7,000-YEAR-OLD DNA REVEALS EUROPEAN AND AFRICAN TRAITS • Remains discovered 5000ft up mountains of north-west Spain • Findings suggest racial transformation happened later than thought • Man, dubbed La Brana 1, also shows similarity to Scandinavian 1.0 WAS THIS THE FIRST BLUE-EYED MAN? 7,000-YEAR-OLD DNA REVEALS EUROPEAN AND AFRICAN TRAITS • Remains discovered 5000ft up mountains of north-west Spain • Findings suggest racial transformation happened later than thought • Man, dubbed La Brana 1, also shows similarity to Scandinavian DNA Quote: His remains were discovered 5,000ft up in the mountains of north-west Spain in 2006. Experts were astonished to find the ancient hunter-gatherer, given the name La Brana 1, had a combination of African and European genes.(THERE ARE NO EUROPEANS GENES!!!!) Results from an analysis of DNA taken from a tooth show he had dark – possibly black – hair and skin with deep blue eyes, the online edition of the journal Nature reports. The mixture of African and European traits implies that the racial transformation of modern humans was still in progress long after they left Africa, with changes in eye colour coming before alterations in skin tone. Study leader Professor Carles Lalueza-Fox, of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, said: ‘The biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans. 'Even more surprising was to find that he possessed the genetic variations that produce blue eyes His was one of two unusually well preserved male skeletons unearthed from the La Brana-Arintero cave system near Leon. The scientists focused first on La Brana 1's DNA because it was in better condition. They hope in due course to piece together the genome of the other man, La Brana 2. He also shared a common ancestor with people who inhabited the Upper Palaeolithic site of Mal'ta, near Lake Baikal, Siberia, more than 20,000 years ago. DNA from one of the Siberians, a boy, last year revealed links with native Americans. 'These data indicate that there is genetic continuity in the populations of central and western Eurasia,' said Prof Lalueza-Fox. He would have been unable to digest lactose in milk or to cope with the starchy food that became the mainstay of later Neolithic farmers. Farming is thought to have driven changes in the human immune system as a result of exposure to bacteria and viruses from animals. The mixture of African and European traits implies that long after modern humans left Africa their racial transformation was still in progress, with changes in eye colour coming before alterations in skin tone. XYYMAN COMMENT: No. Later studies showed that the light skin gene were introduced by EEF/BASAL Eurasian(Saharan Africans). Malstrom et al – Dinka Lazaridis eta al – YRI/Yoruba with the Bediouns as proxies DNATribes – popualtions from the Nile region. Other studies – Luyha groups of Africa
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 13:43:59 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 14:13:28 GMT -5
You are extending black to cover skin shades from 12 - 30, when it it only 21 - 30. The 12 - 20 are intermediate brown shades, including tawny: Btw, i'm also confused with your obsession with skin colour. Populations are also different in many other features, so why not look at those? In hair and cranial form, Neanderthals looked on average nothing like Africans.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 30, 2014 14:59:02 GMT -5
Morphology is not my forte. Logic is. So ok. Enlighten me. I understand Neanderthal cranial features are nothing like AMH. I assume you are saying it is. My understand is, that is why they are NOT considered human because of the cranial and other morphological features.
For the hair. Do we have evidence on their hair. Please post. We know they are black skinned …eh…sorry tawny (sic). And please no outdated studies on red hair nonsense etc. That has been proven as false. If you post that we are done. I don’t have to discuss this stuff with someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about and is too lazy to keep up with the latest findings.
So I am listening….Also no supposedly picture of an artist interpretation of Neanderthals. They got Otzi Iceman wrong already in case you missed it. First Blue eyes then brown eyes. Then white skin now black skin…eh…sorry again…tawny skin.
Go for it.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 30, 2014 15:07:49 GMT -5
There are a few SNP which are telltale signs for texture of hair. Not saying Africans do not have straight hair but I have never seen an study describing the texture of Neanderthals with regards to the corresponding SNPs. As I said I don’t have time to discuss this with someone who just repeat dogma, ignorant and regurgitates outdated studies. I am all ears.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 30, 2014 15:16:15 GMT -5
Your tone and remarks is a telltale sign of you level of intelligence. This is how the discussion should go down if you were an intelligent person.
1st I ask you to produce proof of Neanderthals hair, You then provide the proof, I would come back with an updated study showing that Neanderthal did NOT provide the genotype for red hair to AMH. Then a smart person will shut up and apologize and then move on …eventually changing their views. Are you an intelligent person.?
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 1, 2014 9:52:37 GMT -5
Anyone care to take a stab at this? What are they saying here? I will wait. Ben? This is from the D-Neanderthal-kess forum.
====
Genome-wide Scan of Archaic Hominin Introgressions in Eurasians Reveals Complex Admixture History
Ya Hu, Yi Wang, Qiliang Ding, Yungang He, Minxian Wang, Jiucun Wang, Shuhua Xu, Li Jin
Introgressions from Neanderthals and Denisovans were detected in modern humans. Introgressions from other archaic hominins were also implicated, however, identification of which poses a great technical challenge. Here, we introduced an approach in identifying introgressions from all possible archaic hominins in Eurasian genomes, without referring to archaic hominin sequences. We focused on mutations emerged in archaic hominins after their divergence from modern humans (denoted as archaic-specific mutations), and identified introgressive segments which showed significant enrichment of archaic-specific mutations over the rest of the genome. Furthermore, boundaries of introgressions were identified using a dynamic programming approach to partition whole genome into segments which contained different levels of archaic-specific mutations. We found that detected introgressions shared more archaic-specific mutations with Altai Neanderthal than they shared with Denisovan, and 60.3% of archaic hominin introgressions were from Neanderthals. Furthermore, we detected more introgressions from two unknown archaic hominins whom diverged with modern humans approximately 859 and 3,464 thousand years ago. The latter unknown archaic hominin contributed to the genomes of the common ancestors of modern humans and Neanderthals. In total, archaic hominin introgressions comprised 2.4% of Eurasian genomes. Above results suggested a complex admixture history among hominins. The proposed approach could also facilitate admixture research across species
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 1, 2014 9:55:56 GMT -5
I only realize this morning that this whole thing about Neaderthal Admixture is backed by the “Multiregionalist”.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 13:56:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on May 3, 2014 23:18:38 GMT -5
Not that I agree with the ridiculous assertions of the scientifically illiterate xyyman, but you yourself are just as erroneous when you cite sources talking about "racial" features. You obviously don't realize that 'race' is subjective and specious and therefore not scientifically objective. Exactly what do you mean by "Negroid" or "Afrotropical". Last time I checked Anatomically Modern Humans originated in tropical Africa so which populations today do you think resembled the early AMH populations the most??... Contemporary Europeans? Contemporary East Asians? Perhaps contemporary Native Americans?? LOL Even the bizarre source you are cited makes no sense. How could the early AMH specimens like Herto or Irhoud not be "racially African" if they evolved in Africa like all AMH?? The term "generalized modern" is nothing more than a bogus euphemism for "negroid features" minus certain archaic traits. Homo sapiens idaltu a.k.a. Herto Man (160,000 years b.p.)Modern day man from Herto, EthiopiaEven anthropologist Cavalli Sfroza says the Herto Man skull possesses so many affinities with modern Ethiopians that he could be directly ancestral to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 7:40:05 GMT -5
Not that I agree with the ridiculous assertions of the scientifically illiterate xyyman, but you yourself are just as erroneous when you cite sources talking about "racial" features. You obviously don't realize that 'race' is subjective and specious and therefore not scientifically objective. Exactly what do you mean by "Negroid" or "Afrotropical". Last time I checked Anatomically Modern Humans originated in tropical Africa so which populations today do you think resembled the early AMH populations the most??... Contemporary Europeans? Contemporary East Asians? Perhaps contemporary Native Americans?? LOL Even the bizarre source you are cited makes no sense. How could the early AMH specimens like Herto or Irhoud not be "racially African" if they evolved in Africa like all AMH?? The term "generalized modern" is nothing more than a bogus euphemism for "negroid features" minus certain archaic traits. Homo sapiens idaltu a.k.a. Herto Man (160,000 years b.p.)Modern day man from Herto, EthiopiaEven anthropologist Cavalli Sfroza says the Herto Man skull possesses so many affinities with modern Ethiopians that he could be directly ancestral to them. I already pointed out what 'race' means in multivariate analyses, i.e. averages in terms of (sampled) morphological frequency. In regards to the total variation, populations overlap, so it is quite pointless. However, there are features that appear in certain regions more frequently than others, and the averages are different. At the continental level, it is still therefore convenient to recognize these frequencies as 'racial', but this word can easily be substituted for another. The author of that article is Colin Groves, a leading biological anthropologist. He understands that 'race' doesn't exist in any non-abstract sense, and even in the article claims it is subjective, but that it is still a useful tool. Cranial studies show that AMH do not cluster with any living 'race'/population. They are as distant to Europeans than what Groves calls Afrotropical or Negroid. Again, we are talking averages (anyone can find an individual resemblance from any population). If you study the appearance of 'races', they are very recent. Mongoloids only appeared between 12,000 and 6,000 BC a Groves notes, and Europeans to Cro-Magnon 1.
|
|