So Neanderthal man is AFRICAN. TSK! TSK!

[djoser-xyyman]

The anecdote ?

Quote
---
1998, this discovery of an early Upper Paleolithic human burial at Abrigo do Lagar Velho, by the team led by pre-history archeologist João Zilhão, provided evidence of early modern humans from the west of theIberian Peninsula. The remains, the largely complete skeleton of an approximately 4-year-old child, buried with pierced shell and red ochre, is dated to ca. 24,500 years BP.[1]

This (morphological) mosaic indicates admixture between late archaic and early modern humans in Iberia, refuting hypotheses of complete replacement of the Neanderthals by early modern humans and underlining the complexities of the cultural and biological processes and events that were involved in modern human emergence.[1]

This was contested by several scientists including Prof. Dr. C.P.E. Zollikofer of theUniversity of Zurich who concluded the skeleton does ***not*** reveal Neanderthal affinities.

[anansi]

Do you suppose in any up coming pop science docudrama they will make any changes or will just shut up about leaving the average layman clueless.

[djoser-xyyman]

So ..Green et al was lying and may have inadvertently falsified his data….yet the study is referenced all over the web and other studies. Tsk! Tsk!


---
Quote:


Drafting Human Ancestry: What Does the Neanderthal Genome Tell Us about Hominid Evolution? Commentary on Green et al. (2010) - Michael Hofreiter The University of York,
-
At the end of 2006, two publications reported the first nuclear DNA sequences from Neanderthals (Green et al. 2006; Noonan et al. 2006). One of the studies (Noonan et al. 2006) was
based on directly cloning Neanderthal DNA extract into a bacterial library followed by sequencing thousands of clones, a method that had previously been used for sequencing about 27,000 bp of cave bear nuclear DNA (Noonan et al.
2005),

Despite the fact that both studies used aliquots of the ****SAME**** Neanderthal extract, they arrived at quite different conclusions with regard to biological questions such as the time of divergence or the amount of gene flow between
modern humans and Neanderthals. Whereas Noonan et al. found no evidence for gene flow from modern humans into Neanderthals, Green et al. suggested that a substantial amount of gene flow had taken place. Green et al. also suggested a

divergence time of modern humans and Neanderthals that was not only substantially younger than that obtained by Noonan et al. but also at odds with almost all interpretations of the fossil record. Interestingly, both discrepancies are
readily explained if contamination with modern human DNA affected the results by Green et al. It therefore came not as a big surprise that a ***re-analysis*** of both data sets concluded that the data from Green et al. were heavily affected by
contamination, which may have comprised as much as**** 80% ****of the data set (Wall and Kim 2007).


Quote:

Although Green et al. argue that the contamination level in their original data set is lower than claimed by Wall and Kim, they ***concede*** that up to
40% of the data may consist of contaminating modern human DNA (Green et al. 2009, 2010). This result created somewhat of a paradox: the data obtained by
Noonan et al. seemed reliable, but their methodology would not allow obtaining a substantial part of a Neanderthal genome

[zarahan]

Good roundup again.
Its good you bring this to attention. Never knew about the contamination with Green's study.
Also Never quite heard of the "mutation slowdown" model. Rather the "common ancestor" model
so that what looks like interbreeding is not so much that as of common patterns
being reflected back in the genome from a common ancestor to both humans and Neanderthals.

How does the above tie in with faint Neanderthal traces in Africa?

[jethro]

Aug 23, 2016 18:38:38 GMT -5 djoser-xyyman said:

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!

There  was a back migration of Eurasians into  Africa 3000 years  ago bright spark!    Khoisan  carry DNA  from that migration  including tiny bits of NEANDERTHAL DNA!

[jethro]

Aug 23, 2016 18:33:00 GMT -5 djoser-xyyman said:

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.

Modern  humans  interbred with  NEANDERTHALS and there is plenty of evidence to support it!

[jethro]

Sept 17, 2016 9:24:46 GMT -5 zarahan said:

Good roundup again.
Its good you bring this to attention. Never knew about the contamination with Green's study.
Also Never quite heard of the "mutation slowdown" model. Rather the "common ancestor" model
so that what looks like interbreeding is not so much that as of common patterns
being reflected back in the genome from a common ancestor to both humans and Neanderthals.

How does the above tie in with faint Neanderthal traces in Africa?

BACK  MIGRATION OF EURASIANS!


www.newscientist.com/article/dn24988-humanitys-forgotten-return-to-africa-revealed-in-dna/

[jethro]

I cant believe all the OUT OF DATE RUBBISH these Afronazis use! PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE use UP TO DATE RESPECTED LINKS!

[jethro]

Aug 23, 2016 18:41:28 GMT -5 djoser-xyyman said:

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

NEANDERTHALS   ORIGINATED  FROM THE HEIDELBERGENSIS   IN EUROPE   BUT 300 000  YEARS AGO! 

When  modern  humans arrived in the MIDDLE EAST and EUROPE,  the only other people living there WERE NEANDERTHALS!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal