So lets just do the age old Debate about Pyramids...

[Trey Bantz]

Didn't read much, just skimmed through a couple posts, and some of these arguments sound pretty outlandish to me. I've taken classes on anthropology and evolution and have been told several times that fair skin is a recessive gene that probably emerged through gene mutation thousands of years ago. As our ancestors migrated from Africa up into the Northern parts of the globe the ones with fairer skin were more well suited to withstand the colder climate and they were more successful in passing their genes on to further generations. Evolutionary fitness is based on whether a population is better suited to pass their genes on to the next generation, individuals don't evolve, populations of species do.

 

[martin and co]

Originally Posted by torgriffith

non sense. I guess it's only better to listen to some people's lies and nobody elses alternatives. 

I take everything with a grain of salt. 

And let me get this off my chest. And before you get offended, this is just my personal opinion

I think one of the most ridiculous things in the world is a white person getting offended over how a black person says they feel, by being offended by white people.  

So it's ok to sit up in school and teach about jews who say they hated germans and called them monsters, 

but a black person can't talk about how some racist nonsense about them written by a white person  blasted all around the world makes them feel?

Who gave away all the brownie points and they can't share their story today? 

ya'll need to grow up. black people hurt every from the refelection castedout of them to the world. 

I'm not saying it's right to do it just because, but a black dude don't even get the chance to even do that before somebody claim reverse racism. 

so now college credentials aren't good enough? ya'll kill me with this stuff man. 

We on the internet man. All that talking down about "anybody can find this on a google search."

Yeah fool I know that because thats where I found it at myself.

I'm not you professor homeboys so I don't know why ya'll stressin me like yall paying tuition to be having a conversation in the same forum on the WORLD WIDE WEB as me...

Here is what i do if you wanna know my strategy.

I quickly explain as best as I can and keep it moving. 

I don;t care about nobody on here like that lol

You got eyes, hands, ears and all the other extremities need to argue with me via a computer, so go read and see for yourself. Don't ever take my word for anything i say. You gonna come up with your own conclusion anyway just like i do when I ...uuhhh....

Live my own life not caring about somebody on the web!!! 

You not hurting my feelings with these playground shenanigans ganging up on me cause " we don't like him". Ya'll like some reality tv show girls crying cause you don't like what I said. grow some.

*reply to edit:
No one is trying to "hurt your feelings", I'm sorry you feel that way. Anyone saying "grow some" is the one who needs to "grow up".
Academic credentials are a starting point. Bradley has none. His blurbs are from an afrocentrist who's peers are afrocentrists, and "Ted Thomas, Computer Systems Support Technician". Very credible. It seems like you're the one that's "stressin" after actually being questioned about what you post. Why even bother responding to anything after your initial posts, if you strategy is just to post and let people form their own conclusions? (rhetorical question)
edit:

Originally Posted by trey ohh five

Didn't read much, just skimmed through a couple posts, and some of these arguments sound pretty outlandish to me. I've taken classes on anthropology and evolution and have been told several times that fair skin is a recessive gene that probably emerged through gene mutation thousands of years ago. As our ancestors migrated from Africa up into the Northern parts of the globe the ones with fairer skin were more well suited to withstand the colder climate and they were more successful in passing their genes on to further generations. Evolutionary fitness is based on whether a population is better suited to pass their genes on to the next generation, individuals don't evolve, populations of species do.

Fair skin ≠ albinism, which is what the one poster says "fair skinned" people are. The albino gene is a totally separate gene, it's a gene that dictates a total lack of pigment as opposed to a certain color or quantity. Pigment genes do not operate on a "positive" or "negative" basis when it comes to the skin color of a non-albino person. If a chinese and a british couple have kids,  the kids will not look either totally chinese or totally british, but will be a mix.


[h3]
[/h3]

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by trey ohh five

Didn't read much, just skimmed through a couple posts, and some of these arguments sound pretty outlandish to me. I've taken classes on anthropology and evolution and have been told several times that fair skin is a recessive gene that probably emerged through gene mutation thousands of years ago. As our ancestors migrated from Africa up into the Northern parts of the globe the ones with fairer skin were more well suited to withstand the colder climate and they were more successful in passing their genes on to further generations. Evolutionary fitness is based on whether a population is better suited to pass their genes on to the next generation, individuals don't evolve, populations of species do.

I thought it was this simple. Now the question is where do Neanderthals, sexism and aggression come into the mix.

 

[martin and co]

Originally Posted by torgriffith

non sense. I guess it's only better to listen to some people's lies and nobody elses alternatives. 

I take everything with a grain of salt. 

And let me get this off my chest. And before you get offended, this is just my personal opinion

I think one of the most ridiculous things in the world is a white person getting offended over how a black person says they feel, by being offended by white people.  

So it's ok to sit up in school and teach about jews who say they hated germans and called them monsters, 

but a black person can't talk about how some racist nonsense about them written by a white person  blasted all around the world makes them feel?

Who gave away all the brownie points and they can't share their story today? 

ya'll need to grow up. black people hurt every from the refelection castedout of them to the world. 

I'm not saying it's right to do it just because, but a black dude don't even get the chance to even do that before somebody claim reverse racism. 

so now college credentials aren't good enough? ya'll kill me with this stuff man. 

We on the internet man. All that talking down about "anybody can find this on a google search."

Yeah fool I know that because thats where I found it at myself.

I'm not you professor homeboys so I don't know why ya'll stressin me like yall paying tuition to be having a conversation in the same forum on the WORLD WIDE WEB as me...

Here is what i do if you wanna know my strategy.

I quickly explain as best as I can and keep it moving. 

I don;t care about nobody on here like that lol

You got eyes, hands, ears and all the other extremities need to argue with me via a computer, so go read and see for yourself. Don't ever take my word for anything i say. You gonna come up with your own conclusion anyway just like i do when I ...uuhhh....

Live my own life not caring about somebody on the web!!! 

You not hurting my feelings with these playground shenanigans ganging up on me cause " we don't like him". Ya'll like some reality tv show girls crying cause you don't like what I said. grow some.

*reply to edit:
No one is trying to "hurt your feelings", I'm sorry you feel that way. Anyone saying "grow some" is the one who needs to "grow up".
Academic credentials are a starting point. Bradley has none. His blurbs are from an afrocentrist who's peers are afrocentrists, and "Ted Thomas, Computer Systems Support Technician". Very credible. It seems like you're the one that's "stressin" after actually being questioned about what you post. Why even bother responding to anything after your initial posts, if you strategy is just to post and let people form their own conclusions? (rhetorical question)
edit:

Originally Posted by trey ohh five

Didn't read much, just skimmed through a couple posts, and some of these arguments sound pretty outlandish to me. I've taken classes on anthropology and evolution and have been told several times that fair skin is a recessive gene that probably emerged through gene mutation thousands of years ago. As our ancestors migrated from Africa up into the Northern parts of the globe the ones with fairer skin were more well suited to withstand the colder climate and they were more successful in passing their genes on to further generations. Evolutionary fitness is based on whether a population is better suited to pass their genes on to the next generation, individuals don't evolve, populations of species do.

Fair skin ≠ albinism, which is what the one poster says "fair skinned" people are. The albino gene is a totally separate gene, it's a gene that dictates a total lack of pigment as opposed to a certain color or quantity. Pigment genes do not operate on a "positive" or "negative" basis when it comes to the skin color of a non-albino person. If a chinese and a british couple have kids,  the kids will not look either totally chinese or totally british, but will be a mix.


[h3]
[/h3]

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by trey ohh five

Didn't read much, just skimmed through a couple posts, and some of these arguments sound pretty outlandish to me. I've taken classes on anthropology and evolution and have been told several times that fair skin is a recessive gene that probably emerged through gene mutation thousands of years ago. As our ancestors migrated from Africa up into the Northern parts of the globe the ones with fairer skin were more well suited to withstand the colder climate and they were more successful in passing their genes on to further generations. Evolutionary fitness is based on whether a population is better suited to pass their genes on to the next generation, individuals don't evolve, populations of species do.

I thought it was this simple. Now the question is where do Neanderthals, sexism and aggression come into the mix.

 

[dmv is rnb]

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79


 i thought we were talking about pyramids 

This is how it always happens around here.  There is a topic...someone will state an alternate point of view, and then all those who don't like it end up stalking them and pyramid quoting all of their statements, in some futile attempt to make them defend themselves.  I get sick of this stuff.  Everything is not meant to be a damn debate

.  Nothing offensive was stated in this thread, so no one should be on anyone's case.  Sometimes people just wanna put out some food for thought, and leave it on the table for discussion.  Either grab a plate, or keep it moving.  All this..."I don't like what he said so I'ma bait him in and prove him wrong" *@$#...it gets old.

 

[dmv is rnb]

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79


 i thought we were talking about pyramids 

This is how it always happens around here.  There is a topic...someone will state an alternate point of view, and then all those who don't like it end up stalking them and pyramid quoting all of their statements, in some futile attempt to make them defend themselves.  I get sick of this stuff.  Everything is not meant to be a damn debate

.  Nothing offensive was stated in this thread, so no one should be on anyone's case.  Sometimes people just wanna put out some food for thought, and leave it on the table for discussion.  Either grab a plate, or keep it moving.  All this..."I don't like what he said so I'ma bait him in and prove him wrong" *@$#...it gets old.

 

[torgriffith]

no the video said that. the book said that. I just told you about it. You couldn't get mad at anybody else but me so you did. 

How many times can we throw around the prefix pseudo???????

and I ain;t trying to justify no slavery or racism with "pseudo" anything. I really don;t know what yall are even mad about anymore.

and the book is just a study.

Just like the book on negroes and monkey features by europeans is a study. I'll read those kind of books too so I don't see what the problem is. I'm only reading them to see what the scientist, whether he was a genius scientist or a foolish scientist had to say about their study that they conducted. I'm not gonna take it as the holy grail of knowledge. I'mma just keep it moving as should ya'll.

Hell I took a history class in college and had to read about europeans measuring proportiions on african faces and talking about the monkey qualities and attributes of the negro. You didn't see me boo hooing to the dean of history about what I read.  

Hell I even had to memorize what they talked about to pass the test and write a good essay. 

yall sensitive

and @ Anton

 2 for you brotha.

thumbs up for being the poster child for racial harmony in the world. 

and at MARTIN AND CO, i answer questions to be polite. but thanks for letting me know I don't have to respond to yours now.

Ya'll to busy worried about somebody keeping up with yall and saying something sensational about how everybody in the world is created equally evil when nobody is trying to compare each other on an evil scale.

I guess we need a part of the website were we can see before we post anything if it will be pleasing to the pyramid attack crew.  

 

[bijald0331]

"Nothing offensive was stated in this thread"

Oh.

"Food for thought"

That must be it.




Discussion IS debate!!!!

 

[bijald0331]

"Nothing offensive was stated in this thread"

Oh.

"Food for thought"

That must be it.




Discussion IS debate!!!!

 

[Trey Bantz]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by trey ohh five

Didn't read much, just skimmed through a couple posts, and some of these arguments sound pretty outlandish to me. I've taken classes on anthropology and evolution and have been told several times that fair skin is a recessive gene that probably emerged through gene mutation thousands of years ago. As our ancestors migrated from Africa up into the Northern parts of the globe the ones with fairer skin were more well suited to withstand the colder climate and they were more successful in passing their genes on to further generations. Evolutionary fitness is based on whether a population is better suited to pass their genes on to the next generation, individuals don't evolve, populations of species do.

I thought it was this simple. Now the question is where do Neanderthals, sexism and aggression come into the mix.

They come into the mix when people try to find explanations in the wrong places.

 

[Trey Bantz]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by trey ohh five

Didn't read much, just skimmed through a couple posts, and some of these arguments sound pretty outlandish to me. I've taken classes on anthropology and evolution and have been told several times that fair skin is a recessive gene that probably emerged through gene mutation thousands of years ago. As our ancestors migrated from Africa up into the Northern parts of the globe the ones with fairer skin were more well suited to withstand the colder climate and they were more successful in passing their genes on to further generations. Evolutionary fitness is based on whether a population is better suited to pass their genes on to the next generation, individuals don't evolve, populations of species do.

I thought it was this simple. Now the question is where do Neanderthals, sexism and aggression come into the mix.

They come into the mix when people try to find explanations in the wrong places.

 

[torgriffith]

no the video said that. the book said that. I just told you about it. You couldn't get mad at anybody else but me so you did. 

How many times can we throw around the prefix pseudo???????

and I ain;t trying to justify no slavery or racism with "pseudo" anything. I really don;t know what yall are even mad about anymore.

and the book is just a study.

Just like the book on negroes and monkey features by europeans is a study. I'll read those kind of books too so I don't see what the problem is. I'm only reading them to see what the scientist, whether he was a genius scientist or a foolish scientist had to say about their study that they conducted. I'm not gonna take it as the holy grail of knowledge. I'mma just keep it moving as should ya'll.

Hell I took a history class in college and had to read about europeans measuring proportiions on african faces and talking about the monkey qualities and attributes of the negro. You didn't see me boo hooing to the dean of history about what I read.  

Hell I even had to memorize what they talked about to pass the test and write a good essay. 

yall sensitive

and @ Anton

 2 for you brotha.

thumbs up for being the poster child for racial harmony in the world. 

and at MARTIN AND CO, i answer questions to be polite. but thanks for letting me know I don't have to respond to yours now.

Ya'll to busy worried about somebody keeping up with yall and saying something sensational about how everybody in the world is created equally evil when nobody is trying to compare each other on an evil scale.

I guess we need a part of the website were we can see before we post anything if it will be pleasing to the pyramid attack crew.  

 

[martin and co]

Originally Posted by torgriffith


no the video said that. the book said that. I just told you about it. You couldn't get mad at anybody else but me so you did. 

How many times can we throw around the prefix pseudo???????

and I ain;t trying to justify no slavery or racism with "pseudo" anything. I really don;t know what yall are even mad about anymore.

and the book is just a study.

Just like the book on negroes and monkey features by europeans is a study. I'll read those kind of books too so I don't see what the problem is. I'm only reading them to see what the scientist, whether he was a genius scientist or a foolish scientist had to say about their study that they conducted. I'm not gonna take it as the holy grail of knowledge. I'mma just keep it moving as should ya'll.

Hell I took a history class in college and had to read about europeans measuring proportiions on african faces and talking about the monkey qualities and attributes of the negro. You didn't see me boo hooing to the dean of history about what I read.  

Hell I even had to memorize what they talked about to pass the test and write a good essay. 

yall sensitive

and @ Anton

 2 for you brotha

and at MARTIN AND CO, i answer questions to be polite. but thanks for letting me know I don't have to respond to yours now.

I am mad at you? News to me. The slavery analogy went over your head it seems, no one said you were trying to justify slavery. There are "studies" done on lots of things. Any half-intelligent person can decide not to dive into ones that are rubbish after reading a synopsis. New studies usually show up in scientific journals first, so it's not a question of trying to read every study published anywhere. I would not associate myself, or mention in a positive or neutral light, studies or books that are nonsense. I'm sure glenn beck has a lot to say about politics, etc in his books, but knowing enough about him I don't find myself compelled to read to recommend them.
If that college course was not part of a history of racism or something along those lines, which I suspect it was (what else could it be?), then there would be civil rights activists demanding that school lose its accreditation.
I did not let you know that you don't have to reply to my posts, you were the one who let me know that your strategy is just to quickly post things, and let people form their own opinions. I don't know how you brought sensitivity into this, but I'll file that in my attributes catalog along with needing to "grow some".

 

[martin and co]

Originally Posted by torgriffith


no the video said that. the book said that. I just told you about it. You couldn't get mad at anybody else but me so you did. 

How many times can we throw around the prefix pseudo???????

and I ain;t trying to justify no slavery or racism with "pseudo" anything. I really don;t know what yall are even mad about anymore.

and the book is just a study.

Just like the book on negroes and monkey features by europeans is a study. I'll read those kind of books too so I don't see what the problem is. I'm only reading them to see what the scientist, whether he was a genius scientist or a foolish scientist had to say about their study that they conducted. I'm not gonna take it as the holy grail of knowledge. I'mma just keep it moving as should ya'll.

Hell I took a history class in college and had to read about europeans measuring proportiions on african faces and talking about the monkey qualities and attributes of the negro. You didn't see me boo hooing to the dean of history about what I read.  

Hell I even had to memorize what they talked about to pass the test and write a good essay. 

yall sensitive

and @ Anton

 2 for you brotha

and at MARTIN AND CO, i answer questions to be polite. but thanks for letting me know I don't have to respond to yours now.

I am mad at you? News to me. The slavery analogy went over your head it seems, no one said you were trying to justify slavery. There are "studies" done on lots of things. Any half-intelligent person can decide not to dive into ones that are rubbish after reading a synopsis. New studies usually show up in scientific journals first, so it's not a question of trying to read every study published anywhere. I would not associate myself, or mention in a positive or neutral light, studies or books that are nonsense. I'm sure glenn beck has a lot to say about politics, etc in his books, but knowing enough about him I don't find myself compelled to read to recommend them.
If that college course was not part of a history of racism or something along those lines, which I suspect it was (what else could it be?), then there would be civil rights activists demanding that school lose its accreditation.
I did not let you know that you don't have to reply to my posts, you were the one who let me know that your strategy is just to quickly post things, and let people form their own opinions. I don't know how you brought sensitivity into this, but I'll file that in my attributes catalog along with needing to "grow some".

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by MARTIN AND CO

Originally Posted by torgriffith


no the video said that. the book said that. I just told you about it. You couldn't get mad at anybody else but me so you did. 

How many times can we throw around the prefix pseudo???????

and I ain;t trying to justify no slavery or racism with "pseudo" anything. I really don;t know what yall are even mad about anymore.

and the book is just a study.

Just like the book on negroes and monkey features by europeans is a study. I'll read those kind of books too so I don't see what the problem is. I'm only reading them to see what the scientist, whether he was a genius scientist or a foolish scientist had to say about their study that they conducted. I'm not gonna take it as the holy grail of knowledge. I'mma just keep it moving as should ya'll.

Hell I took a history class in college and had to read about europeans measuring proportiions on african faces and talking about the monkey qualities and attributes of the negro. You didn't see me boo hooing to the dean of history about what I read.  

Hell I even had to memorize what they talked about to pass the test and write a good essay. 

yall sensitive

and @ Anton

 2 for you brotha

and at MARTIN AND CO, i answer questions to be polite. but thanks for letting me know I don't have to respond to yours now.

I am mad at you? News to me. The slavery analogy went over your head it seems, no one said you were trying to justify slavery. There are "studies" done on lots of things. Any half-intelligent person can decide not to dive into ones that are rubbish after reading a synopsis. New studies usually show up in scientific journals first, so it's not a question of trying to read every study published anywhere. I would not associate myself, or mention in a positive or neutral light, studies or books that are nonsense. I'm sure glenn beck has a lot to say about politics, etc in his books, but knowing enough about him I don't find myself compelled to read to recommend them.
If that college course was not part of a history of racism or something along those lines, which I suspect it was (what else could it be?), then there would be civil rights activists demanding that school lose its accreditation.
I did not let you know that you don't have to reply to my posts, you were the one who let me know that your strategy is just to quickly post things, and let people form their own opinions. I don't know how you brought sensitivity into this, but I'll file that in my attributes catalog along with needing to "grow some".

I was bout to ask this, no one teaches that rubbish as scientific knowledge, it's mostly done in a historical context of dark times in scientific history.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by MARTIN AND CO

Originally Posted by torgriffith


no the video said that. the book said that. I just told you about it. You couldn't get mad at anybody else but me so you did. 

How many times can we throw around the prefix pseudo???????

and I ain;t trying to justify no slavery or racism with "pseudo" anything. I really don;t know what yall are even mad about anymore.

and the book is just a study.

Just like the book on negroes and monkey features by europeans is a study. I'll read those kind of books too so I don't see what the problem is. I'm only reading them to see what the scientist, whether he was a genius scientist or a foolish scientist had to say about their study that they conducted. I'm not gonna take it as the holy grail of knowledge. I'mma just keep it moving as should ya'll.

Hell I took a history class in college and had to read about europeans measuring proportiions on african faces and talking about the monkey qualities and attributes of the negro. You didn't see me boo hooing to the dean of history about what I read.  

Hell I even had to memorize what they talked about to pass the test and write a good essay. 

yall sensitive

and @ Anton

 2 for you brotha

and at MARTIN AND CO, i answer questions to be polite. but thanks for letting me know I don't have to respond to yours now.

I am mad at you? News to me. The slavery analogy went over your head it seems, no one said you were trying to justify slavery. There are "studies" done on lots of things. Any half-intelligent person can decide not to dive into ones that are rubbish after reading a synopsis. New studies usually show up in scientific journals first, so it's not a question of trying to read every study published anywhere. I would not associate myself, or mention in a positive or neutral light, studies or books that are nonsense. I'm sure glenn beck has a lot to say about politics, etc in his books, but knowing enough about him I don't find myself compelled to read to recommend them.
If that college course was not part of a history of racism or something along those lines, which I suspect it was (what else could it be?), then there would be civil rights activists demanding that school lose its accreditation.
I did not let you know that you don't have to reply to my posts, you were the one who let me know that your strategy is just to quickly post things, and let people form their own opinions. I don't know how you brought sensitivity into this, but I'll file that in my attributes catalog along with needing to "grow some".

I was bout to ask this, no one teaches that rubbish as scientific knowledge, it's mostly done in a historical context of dark times in scientific history.

 

[torgriffith]

I guess I need a "I went to school in Texas" disclaimer as well
And why do ya'll say that i'm using the same racist science to prove my "crappy theories". Did white racist scientist do dna testing back then too on blacks and whites and trace the family tree ????

Ancient Technology???

 

but for real, apples to oranges/

 

[torgriffith]

I guess I need a "I went to school in Texas" disclaimer as well
And why do ya'll say that i'm using the same racist science to prove my "crappy theories". Did white racist scientist do dna testing back then too on blacks and whites and trace the family tree ????

Ancient Technology???

 

but for real, apples to oranges/

 

[antonlavey]

http://news.nationalgeogr...ated-interbred-dna-gene/






The next time you're tempted to call some oaf a Neanderthal, you might want to take a look in the mirror.



Accordingto a new DNA study, most humans have a little Neanderthal in them—atleast 1 to 4 percent of a person's genetic makeup.

The study uncovered the first solid genetic evidence that "modern" humans—or %$!$ sapiens—interbred with their Neanderthal neighbors, who mysteriously died out about 30,000 years ago.

What's more, the Neanderthal-modern human mating apparently took place in the Middle East, shortly after modern humans had left Africa, not in Europe—as has long been suspected.

"We can now say that, in all probability, there was gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans," lead study author Ed Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz, said in a prepared statement.

That's no surprise to anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, whose skeleton-based claims of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding—previously contradicted with DNA evidence—appear to have been vindicated by the new gene study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science.

"They'vefinally seen the light ... because it's been obvious to many us thatthis happened," said Trinkaus, of Washington University in St. Louis,Missouri, who wasn't part of the new study.

Trinkhaus adds that most living humans probably have much more Neanderthal DNA than the new study suggests.

"One to 4 percent is truly a minimum," Trinkaus added. "But is it 10 percent? Twenty percent? I have no idea."

(Also see "Neanderthals, Modern Humans Interbred, Bone Study Suggests.")

Surprising Spot for Neanderthal-Human Mating

The genetic study team reached their conclusion after comparing the genomes of five living humans—from China, France, Papua New Guinea, southern Africa, and western Africa—against the available "rough draft" of the Neanderthal genome. (Get the basics on genetics.)

Theresults showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to modernhuman DNA, versus, for example, 98.8 percent for modern humans andchimps, according to the study. (Related: "Neanderthals Had Same 'Language Gene' as Modern Humans.")

Inaddition, all modern ethnic groups, other than Africans, carry tracesof Neanderthal DNA in their genomes, the study says—which at firstpuzzled the scientists. Though no fossil evidence has been found forNeanderthals and modern humans coexisting in Africa, Neanderthals, likemodern humans, are thought to have arisen on the continent.

"Ifyou told an archaeologist that you'd found evidence of gene exchangebetween Neanderthals and modern humans and asked them to guess which[living] population it was found in, most would say Europeans, becausethere's well documented archaeological evidence that they lived side byside for several thousand years," said study team member David Reich.

Foranother thing, Neanderthals never lived in China or Papua New Guinea,in the Pacific region of Melanesia, according to the archaeologicalrecord. (See "Neanderthals Ranged Much Farther East Than Thought.")

"Butthe fact is that Chinese and Melanesians are as closely related toNeanderthals" as Europeans, said Reich, a population geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University.

(See pictures of a reconstructed Neanderthal and take a Neanderthals quiz.)

Neanderthal-Human One-Night Stand?

So how did modern humans with Neanderthal DNA end up in Asia and Melanesia?

Neanderthals, the study team says, probably mixed with early %$!$ sapiens just after they'd left Africa but before %$!$ sapiens split into different ethnic groups and scattered around the globe.

Thefirst opportunity for interbreeding probably occurred about 60,000years ago in Middle Eastern regions adjacent to Africa, wherearchaeological evidence shows the two species overlapped for a time,the team says.

And it wouldn't have taken muchmating to make an impact, according to study co-author Reich. Theresults could stem from a Neanderthal-modern human one-night stand orfrom thousands of interspecies assignations, he said.

(Related: "Neanderthals Grew Fast, but Sexual Maturity Came Late.")

More DNA Evidence for Neanderthal-Human Mating

The new study isn't alone in finding genetic hints of %$!$ sapiens-%$!$ neanderthalensis interbreeding.

Genetic anthropologist Jeffrey Long, who calls the Science study"very exciting," co-authored a new, not yet published study that foundDNA evidence of interbreeding between early modern humans and an"archaic human" species, though it's not clear which. He presented histeam's findings at a meeting of the American Association of PhysicalAnthropologists in Albuquerque, New Mexico, last month.

Long'steam reached its conclusions after searching the genomes of hundreds ofmodern humans for "signatures of different evolutionary processes inDNA variation."

Like the new Science paper,Long's study speculates that interbreeding occurred just after ourspecies had left Africa, but Long's study didn't include analysis ofthe Neanderthal genome.

"At the time we started theproject, I never imagined I'd ever see an empirical confirmation ofit," said Long, referring to the Science team's Neanderthal-DNA evidence, "so I'm pretty happy to see it."


I'm doing some research and quite a few studies show Neanderthal DNA is not exclusive to Europeans? EXPLAIN?

 

[antonlavey]

http://news.nationalgeogr...ated-interbred-dna-gene/






The next time you're tempted to call some oaf a Neanderthal, you might want to take a look in the mirror.



Accordingto a new DNA study, most humans have a little Neanderthal in them—atleast 1 to 4 percent of a person's genetic makeup.

The study uncovered the first solid genetic evidence that "modern" humans—or %$!$ sapiens—interbred with their Neanderthal neighbors, who mysteriously died out about 30,000 years ago.

What's more, the Neanderthal-modern human mating apparently took place in the Middle East, shortly after modern humans had left Africa, not in Europe—as has long been suspected.

"We can now say that, in all probability, there was gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans," lead study author Ed Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz, said in a prepared statement.

That's no surprise to anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, whose skeleton-based claims of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding—previously contradicted with DNA evidence—appear to have been vindicated by the new gene study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science.

"They'vefinally seen the light ... because it's been obvious to many us thatthis happened," said Trinkaus, of Washington University in St. Louis,Missouri, who wasn't part of the new study.

Trinkhaus adds that most living humans probably have much more Neanderthal DNA than the new study suggests.

"One to 4 percent is truly a minimum," Trinkaus added. "But is it 10 percent? Twenty percent? I have no idea."

(Also see "Neanderthals, Modern Humans Interbred, Bone Study Suggests.")

Surprising Spot for Neanderthal-Human Mating

The genetic study team reached their conclusion after comparing the genomes of five living humans—from China, France, Papua New Guinea, southern Africa, and western Africa—against the available "rough draft" of the Neanderthal genome. (Get the basics on genetics.)

Theresults showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to modernhuman DNA, versus, for example, 98.8 percent for modern humans andchimps, according to the study. (Related: "Neanderthals Had Same 'Language Gene' as Modern Humans.")

Inaddition, all modern ethnic groups, other than Africans, carry tracesof Neanderthal DNA in their genomes, the study says—which at firstpuzzled the scientists. Though no fossil evidence has been found forNeanderthals and modern humans coexisting in Africa, Neanderthals, likemodern humans, are thought to have arisen on the continent.

"Ifyou told an archaeologist that you'd found evidence of gene exchangebetween Neanderthals and modern humans and asked them to guess which[living] population it was found in, most would say Europeans, becausethere's well documented archaeological evidence that they lived side byside for several thousand years," said study team member David Reich.

Foranother thing, Neanderthals never lived in China or Papua New Guinea,in the Pacific region of Melanesia, according to the archaeologicalrecord. (See "Neanderthals Ranged Much Farther East Than Thought.")

"Butthe fact is that Chinese and Melanesians are as closely related toNeanderthals" as Europeans, said Reich, a population geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University.

(See pictures of a reconstructed Neanderthal and take a Neanderthals quiz.)

Neanderthal-Human One-Night Stand?

So how did modern humans with Neanderthal DNA end up in Asia and Melanesia?

Neanderthals, the study team says, probably mixed with early %$!$ sapiens just after they'd left Africa but before %$!$ sapiens split into different ethnic groups and scattered around the globe.

Thefirst opportunity for interbreeding probably occurred about 60,000years ago in Middle Eastern regions adjacent to Africa, wherearchaeological evidence shows the two species overlapped for a time,the team says.

And it wouldn't have taken muchmating to make an impact, according to study co-author Reich. Theresults could stem from a Neanderthal-modern human one-night stand orfrom thousands of interspecies assignations, he said.

(Related: "Neanderthals Grew Fast, but Sexual Maturity Came Late.")

More DNA Evidence for Neanderthal-Human Mating

The new study isn't alone in finding genetic hints of %$!$ sapiens-%$!$ neanderthalensis interbreeding.

Genetic anthropologist Jeffrey Long, who calls the Science study"very exciting," co-authored a new, not yet published study that foundDNA evidence of interbreeding between early modern humans and an"archaic human" species, though it's not clear which. He presented histeam's findings at a meeting of the American Association of PhysicalAnthropologists in Albuquerque, New Mexico, last month.

Long'steam reached its conclusions after searching the genomes of hundreds ofmodern humans for "signatures of different evolutionary processes inDNA variation."

Like the new Science paper,Long's study speculates that interbreeding occurred just after ourspecies had left Africa, but Long's study didn't include analysis ofthe Neanderthal genome.

"At the time we started theproject, I never imagined I'd ever see an empirical confirmation ofit," said Long, referring to the Science team's Neanderthal-DNA evidence, "so I'm pretty happy to see it."


I'm doing some research and quite a few studies show Neanderthal DNA is not exclusive to Europeans? EXPLAIN?

 

[torgriffith]

of course. a lot of blacks have white descendants. we are a melting pot dude. no one is denying that...
good article by the way.

The article does say all other ethnic groups other than Africans carry the genetics. That's not including african americans.
and what that really means to is that outta all that racist talk everybody was shoutin about earlier, I even have to include myself in there too being that I live here in America

 

[torgriffith]

of course. a lot of blacks have white descendants. we are a melting pot dude. no one is denying that...
good article by the way.

The article does say all other ethnic groups other than Africans carry the genetics. That's not including african americans.
and what that really means to is that outta all that racist talk everybody was shoutin about earlier, I even have to include myself in there too being that I live here in America

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by torgriffith

of course. a lot of blacks have white descendants. we are a melting pot dude. no one is denying that...
good article by the way.

The article does say all other ethnic groups other than Africans carry the genetics. That's not including african americans.
and what that really means to is that outta all that racist talk everybody was shoutin about earlier, I even have to include myself in there too being that I live here in America

Yea so doesn't this discredit any assertions that white people are the way they are because of neanderthal genes? Seeing how chinese people and people from new guinea have just as much?


either way whether or not "Africans" have this gene is irrelevant, the discovery of the neanderthal genetics in pretty much every other ethnic group (because this interbreeding happened before they split into various ethnic groups would discredit any assertions that the European man is the way he is because of neanderthal genes. Because it appears pretty much everyone else has said genes.


Now the new question becomes, if this vidence is indeed true....what does this lack of traces of neanderthal genetics mean for African people? Does this lack of trace amount of Neanderthal genes confer positive or negative attributes to "Africans" in comparison to other races?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by torgriffith

of course. a lot of blacks have white descendants. we are a melting pot dude. no one is denying that...
good article by the way.

The article does say all other ethnic groups other than Africans carry the genetics. That's not including african americans.
and what that really means to is that outta all that racist talk everybody was shoutin about earlier, I even have to include myself in there too being that I live here in America

Yea so doesn't this discredit any assertions that white people are the way they are because of neanderthal genes? Seeing how chinese people and people from new guinea have just as much?


either way whether or not "Africans" have this gene is irrelevant, the discovery of the neanderthal genetics in pretty much every other ethnic group (because this interbreeding happened before they split into various ethnic groups would discredit any assertions that the European man is the way he is because of neanderthal genes. Because it appears pretty much everyone else has said genes.


Now the new question becomes, if this vidence is indeed true....what does this lack of traces of neanderthal genetics mean for African people? Does this lack of trace amount of Neanderthal genes confer positive or negative attributes to "Africans" in comparison to other races?