So Neanderthal man is AFRICAN. TSK! TSK!

[djoser-xyyman]

More Lies - So Neanderthal ma is AFRICAN. TSK! TSK!

Discovery of Neanderthal Man in Malta
ARTHUR KEITH
Of the various problems relating to extinct forms of man, none is of greater interest than that which concerns Homo neanderthalensis. This peculiar and extinct species of man appeared in Europe about the commencement of the Mousterian cultural period, and all traces of him vanish towards the close of that period. Where he came from and where he finally disappeared we do not know, hence every additional fact we can collect about him is of value. So far his remains have been found at Gibraltar (1848), the Rhine valley (1857), Belgium, the Dordogne, and Croatia. The peculiar teeth of this race were reported from the Mousterian strata of a cave in Jersey by Dr. R. R. Marett in 1911. Excavations in the cave of Ghar Dalam, in the south-eastern corner of Malta, carried out by Dr. Giuseppe Despott, curator of the Natural History Museum of the University of Malta, working for a research committee of the British Association, has brought to light the remains of Neanderthal man in that island, thus extending the distribution of this species to another continent; for, in a zoological sense, Malta is African rather than European.

It is true that so far only two teeth have been found—a first upper molar and a milk molar—but those who are familiar with the characteristic form of the molar teeth of Neanderthal man will have no hesitation in assenting to the truth of Dr. Despott’s discovery. I append Dr. Despott’s photograph of the two Neanderthal teeth, giving for comparison photographs of the teeth of a modern type of man found in the Neolithic strata of Ghar Dalam, overlying the strata from which the Neanderthal teeth were derived (Fig. 1).



The origin of Neandertals
1. J. J. Hublin1

Abstract
Western Eurasia yielded a rich Middle (MP) and Late Pleistocene (LP) fossil record documenting the evolution of the Neandertals that can be analyzed in light of recently acquired paleogenetical data, an abundance of archeological evidence, and a well-known environmental context. Their origin likely relates to an episode of recolonization of Western Eurasia by hominins of African origin carrying the Acheulean technology into Europe around 600 ka. An enhancement of both glacial and interglacial phases may have played a crucial role in this event, as well as in the subsequent evolutionary history of the Western Eurasian populations. In addition to climatic adaptations and an increase in encephalization, genetic drift seems to have played a major role in their evolution. To date, a clear speciation event is not documented, and the most likely scenario for the fixation of Neandertal characteristics seems to be an accretion of features along the second half of the MP. Although a separation time for the African and Eurasian populations is difficult to determine, it certainly predates OIS 11 as phenotypic Neandertal features are documented as far back as and possibly before this time. It is proposed to use the term “Homo rhodesiensis” to designate the ***large-brained hominins*** ancestral to H. sapiens in Africa and at the root of the Neandertals in Europe, and to use the term “Homo neanderthalensis” to designate all of the specimens carrying derived metrical or non-metrical features used in the definition of the LP Neandertals.

[zarahan]

Can you sum up/link the other recent research on this question- caves of Italy etc?

[djoser-xyyman]

Good idea. I am on my tablet now, when I am on my desktop or laptop it will be easier to copy and post from ES.

Aug 19, 2016 22:18:51 GMT -5 zarahan said:

Can you sum up/link the other recent research on this question- caves of Italy etc?

[djoser-xyyman]

Direct radiocarbon dating and genetic analyses on the purported Neanderthal mandible from the Monti Lessini (Italy). - Talamo S

Abstract
Anatomically modern humans replaced Neanderthals in Europe around 40,000 years ago. The demise of the Neanderthals and the nature of the possible relationship with anatomically modern humans has captured our imagination and stimulated research for more than a century now. Recent chronological studies suggest a possible overlap between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans of more than 5,000 years. Analyses of ancient genome sequences from both groups have shown that they interbred multiple times, including in Europe. A potential place of interbreeding is the notable Palaeolithic site of Riparo Mezzena in Northern Italy. In order to improve our understanding of prehistoric occupation at Mezzena, we analysed the human mandible and several cranial fragments from the site using radiocarbon dating, ancient DNA, ZooMS and isotope analyses. We also performed a more detailed investigation of the lithic assemblage of layer I. ****Surprisingly**** we found that the Riparo Mezzena mandible is*** NOT*** from a Neanderthal but belonged to an anatomically modern human. Furthermore, we found ****no evidence for the presence of Neanderthal remains ***among 11 of the 13 cranial and post-cranial fragments re-investigated in this study Direct radiocarbon dating and genetic analyses on the purported Neanderthal mandible from the Monti Lessini (Italy). - Talamo S

[djoser-xyyman]

These Europeans are chronic liars. They just can't help themselves. To the newbies. What is the paper about? They are EXPOSING the lies perpetuated by other European researchers that humans and Neanderthal interbreed in Mezzena cave. Not only that they are stating that the research was possibly falsified. To what end? Your guess is as good as mine. Lol!


----
----
QUOTEs
but they have not yet been substantiated by palaeogenetic data5,6. One example is the late Mousterian site of Riparo Mezzena in northern


Results
For this study, 10 of the 13 human specimens retrieved by Angelo Pasa were made available to us by the Natural History Museum of Verona. In addition, we were able to analyse a second post-cranial human fragment (IGVR
63017-5/MLS 3)19 belonging to the Riparo Mezzena collection, which was not described in Corrain15 and was probably identified during a recent re-examination of the faunal assemblage of Riparo Mezzena23. The two bone
fragments that were not analysed in this study, which include MLS 1 (IGVR 63017-7 or IGVR 63017-9)7,24, used in most palaeogenetic studies,**** had NOT been returned to the above-mentioned Museum.***


mandible IGVR 203334, see Supplementary Information) are unlikely to belong to a Neanderthal, given that this group became extinct long before the Holocene

The doubts raised by the radiocarbon dating and isotope analyses on IGVR 63017-4 were among the reasons that pushed us to undertake ZooMS and DNA analyses on the purported Neanderthal bone fragments from
Riparo Mezzena.

Based on these results we conclude that IGVR 20334 (the mandible), IGVR 63017-15, IGVR 63017-3 and IGVR 63017-14 carry authentic ancient mtDNA of the modern human type

The discrepancies between the results of the genetic analyses performed here and in previous studies8,19 are**** striking***. The fact that we did not detect authentic ancient DNA in MLS 3 using the most sensitive method currently
available33 is difficult to reconcile with the presence of ancient DNA in the specimen. Moreover, the mandible, which exhibits poor but detectable levels of ancient DNA preservation in our analysis, carries mtDNA of
the modern human type. It is important to note that previous work relied on amplification of short stretches of DNA by PCR, an approach that is much less sensitive than current library preparation and high-throughput
sequencing techniques33. Unlike PCR, library preparation allows molecules to be sequenced in their entirety, thereby providing information on DNA degradation patterns that lend evidence to the ancient origin of the modern
human sequences retrieved from the Mezzena mandible. Our results highlight once more that PCR-based ancient DNA analyses are prone to contamination43. ***Yet,*** the case of Mezzena is unusual in that contamination
must have been **REPEATEDLY** introduced through PCR products of Neanderthal DNA rather than genomic DNA from modern humans. It is unfortunate that MLS 1, the specimen studied most extensively by means of
genetics16,18,20, is not available for repeated analyses. The fact that the published mtDNA sequence of MLS 1 differs from the sequences of other Neanderthals44 does not per se prove its authenticity. The MLS 1 sequence was reconstructed
from several short PCR products and it is conceivable that it represents a patchwork of contaminant Neanderthal and modern human sequences rather than a genuine Neanderthal sequence. Our findings thus put
a question mark over all previous genetic results obtained from the Mezzena remains. Based on the concordant results of the suite of techniques employed in our study, we do not support the
hypothesis put forward by Condemi and collaborators8 that Riparo Mezzena and its surroundings was an area of long chronological overlap, where interbreeding between Neanderthals and anatomically modern
humans took place. New excavations are required to gain a better understanding of crucial periods, such as the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition. If materials from sites excavated long ago (e.g. Riparo Mezzena) are to
be used to provide additional data on these complex phases of our evolutionary history, then it should only be done using the whole suite of state-of-the-art methods at our disposal.

[djoser-xyyman]

Furthermore. The two ancient bone fragments were NEVER returned. These two fragmenst were used to speculate that humans and Neanderthal mated in Italy. EUROPEANS....and their lies and deception


To anyone who did not get it. The researchers who published that humans and Neanderthal admixed using bones from Mezzena cave did NOT return the specimen to the Museum AFTER they completed their research and published. Why? So no one can verify or duplicate their results!!! Lol! Tsk! Tsk! SMH. This new group of researchers (white! @lioness) went ahead and re-analyzed the remaining bone fragments and expose that the Neanderthal /Human mating hypothesis in the cave was not only wrong but ‘deliberately’ falsified.

[djoser-xyyman]

Good research and quotes!

It is not a “conspiracy theory” when they imply admixture and do not return the samples! Admittedly Condemi et al did suggest it could be “sub-structure” and NOT admixture.


---
Quote:
You posted an article that deputes the results using more advanced techniques.
That was based on specimens other than the two fragments not returned. Therefore the conclusions were not dependent on those two fragments due to there were 10 other specimens rendering your conspiracy theory mute.

Quote: Possible Interbreeding in Late Italian Neanderthals?

New Data from the Mezzena Jaw (Monti Lessini, Verona, Italy)
Silvana Condemi , Aurélien Mounier, Paolo Giunti, Martina Lari, David Caramelli, Laura Longo
Published: March 27, 2013

Therefore, in our view, this change in morphology of the mandibular chin among the fossils of Mezzena and other late Neanderthals could have been the result of a small degree of interbreeding with AMHs. We must nevertheless keep in mind that this data cannot exclude the possibility that the estimated genetic admixture between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis might be due to a sub-structure of an ancient African ancestor of archaic human and present-day human populations [53],or a more complex model recently published [54].

[djoser-xyyman]

More lies being exposed. They would not release the data for independent analysis. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Ha!


====
Quote
No evidence for unknown archaic ancestry in South Asia Pontus Skoglund1,2

Genomic studies have documented a contribution of archaic Neanderthals and Denisovans to non-Africans1,2. Recently Mondal et al.3 published a major dataset—the largest whole genome sequencing study of diverse South Asians to date—including 60 mainland groups and 10 indigenous Andamanese. They reported analyses claiming that nearly all South Asians harbor ancestry from an unknown archaic human population that is neither Neanderthal nor Denisovan. However, the statistics cited in support of this conclusion do not replicate in other data sets, and ***in fact contradict the conclusion.***

One possible explanation for the skew that the authors observe3 is batch artifacts, reflecting differences in laboratory or computer processing between the data newly reported by Mondal et al., and the data from non-Indians used for comparison10. Separate processing is known to be able to cause correlation of errors within datasets, and this could explain why the newly reported South Asian genomes appear (artifactually) to share fewer alleles with other modern humans. However, the data used by Mondal et al. have not been made available for independent reanalysis, and without this, a definitive explanation is not possible. Whatever the explanation, our analyses contradict the claim of unknown archaic ancestry in South Asians.

[djoser-xyyman]

Introduction
It is widely accepted that modern non-African humans carry a few percent of Neanderthal DNA as a legacy of historical inter-breeding 1-3. The original inferences were based on higher
than expected levels of base-sharing between Neanderthals and non-Africans. This pattern was subsequently reinforced by analyses of the size of introgressed fragments 4, analysis of
the Denisovan genome 5 and targeted analyses of specific individuals 6 and genes 7. The latter two are convincing but inferences of the more general patterns explicitly assume that
mutation rate is constant 1,8. In fact, human mutation rate likely varies between populations 9 and this variation covaries with heterozygosity (heterozygote instability, HI) 10, a pattern also
reported recently in plants 11. Consequently, the large loss of heterozygosity that humans suffered while migrating out of Africa lowered the mutation rate in non-Africans 10, causing
non-Africans to be more related than Africans both to our common ancestor and to related lineages like Neanderthals. In view of this I decided to conduct a series of tests aimed at
distinguishing between Neanderthal introgression and mutation slowdown.

[djoser-xyyman]

So. Paabo and Greene et al are being exposed as liars. Lies! Lies! and more lies!

QUOTE:

The signal of introgression is independent of Neanderthal sequences.
Mutation slowdown predicts that the ABBA-BABA signal is an inherent property of modern humans, arising through a higher African mutation rate, so will be present regardless of the outgroups. I therefore conducted an ABBA-BABA analysis, substituting the Neanderthal genome with ancestral human alleles, AA, as inferred from a panel of primates by the 1000 genomes project, i.e. H1-H2-AA-CMP. To prevent any possible spill-over signal, all informative Neanderthal sites that contributed to the original ABBA-BABA signal were excluded. The resulting ABBA-BABA signal is even stronger than for H1-H2-NEA-CMP (Fig 2). The presence of a signal that not only remains but actually increases in strength when Neanderthal information is excluded indicates that much or all of the signal is unrelated to Neanderthal introgression and requires an alternative explanation (Supplementary material 2).


-----


The quantity of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans: a reanalysis
relaxing the assumption of constant mutation rate.
William Amos
Department of Zoology
Downing Street
Cambridge
CB2 3EJ

[djoser-xyyman]

1. all African show supposed "Neanderthal" Admixture not only Maasai. Cited already.


Keep in mind when the thesis of no Neanderthal admixture in Africans was proposed they used only ONE African population ie YRI. I believe they chose only ONE person from each group to build their that thesis.

2. No, there wasn't any sexual contact and mating between AMH and Neanderthal. Babujani et al. It is , yes, ancient 'African" population ie substructure related to BOTH Neanderthal and AMH responsible for the relatedness between OOA and Neanderthal.

3. As I stated many times. YRI is a young population. that is why more "Neanderthal" admixture is found in 'older' North Africans compared to younger YRI.

4. Archaic "admixture" is found in Pygmies and Khoi-san...tic! tic! tic!

[djoser-xyyman]

Also Keep in mind NO Neanderthal admixture is found in Basal Eurasian (Lazaridis et al). Do you understand ...why?

Simple. This is not rocket science. As Lazaridis proposed. First, "basal Eurasian" is recent African and part of the same stock as younger Africans. The older OOA carried and older archaic structure (wrongfuly identified as Neanderthal as this new paper suggests). The emerging Neolithics/Basal Eurasian encountered these Older OOA. That is why East Asians which is most geographically distant from the Neolithic Africans carry more "Neanderthal Admixture".

[djoser-xyyman]

Lol! Paabo and Greene are on the ropes. Defending their lies and racism.


-------
QUOTE:
Conclusions.
The idea of widespread interbreeding between modern humans and other hominids has been broadly and rapidly accepted, I am sure in part because the idea of carrying their legacy is undeniably romantic. Another key element is that, so far, a plausible alternative hypothesis has not been available. Mounting evidence in favour of HI offers an alternative explanation for many or most of the observations used to infer introgression, from differential patterns of base sharing to changes in apparent block size. The HI-mediated mutation slowdown hypothesis fits better with a range of direct tests of fit in which opposing predictions of the two hypotheses are compared. Consequently, there is now a clear need to explain why mutation slowdown is so strongly favoured before the idea of a widespread Neanderthal legacy can be considered proven.

[djoser-xyyman]

To the newbies. To summarize. What the author is saying is that Paabo and Greene were WRONG. There was no Neanderthal admixture with AMH. It is only a romantic(delusion) within the minds of Europeans that quickly gained popularity when it was published.

Paabo and Greene LIED!!!

[djoser-xyyman]

Quotes :
In view of this I decided to conduct a series of tests aimed at distinguishing between Neanderthal introgression and mutation slowdown.

Crucially, the mutation slowdown model makes a range of predictions that can be used to help distinguish it FROM introgression.

Perhaps unexpectedly, in every test I applied the mutation slowdown model offers a better, often unambiguously better, fit to the data than the Neanderthal introgression model. My results therefore appear to be at odds with previous studies, a conflict that can be resolved in three main ways.

First, my analyses are constrained both by the populations covered by the 1000 genomes project, which do not include representatives from Oceania, and refer mainly to broad patterns linked to Neanderthals. As such, they have no particular implications either for the Denisovan ***story*** 26, nor for *****anecdotal***** observations of specific individuals or genes. Indeed, evidence for occasional interbreeding events seems rather strong and, if the resulting offspring survived and bred