The Flood and the Garden of Eden Found!

[passer...@gmail.com]

Introduction:

The most bitter dispute in the study of human origins, perhaps in modern science has between those that believe in the Universal Brotherhood of Man and those that think those that look different are not closely related not part of the Brotherhood of Man, and inferior. In some cases, claiming they are different species, even. There is no clearer example of this than Neanderthal, who until recently, they not only thought was a different species, but was too stupid to talk.

Those that support the Brotherhood of Man have been in the minority, ignored by the media, and discounted by most of pop culture and their peers. This is from the #1 Brotherhood of Man champion, Trinkaus, about the #1 racist/speciesist that represented the overwhelming majority of what passes for scientists in the rather voodoo field of anthropology....

A Correction to the Commentary of Tattersall and Schwartz Concerning the Interpretation of the Lagar Velho 1 Child
Erik Trinkaus
(Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis MO 63130, USA)
João Zilhão, (Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Av. da Índia 136, 1300 Lisboa, Portugal)
June 24, 1999

...Concluding Remarks

"It remains possible that our admixture hypothesis will be refuted or an alternative and equally valid explanation will be put forward. However, as the discussion above indicates, nothing in this abysmal piece of scholarship serves to refute our basic premise, that the Lagar Velho 1 child presents a mosaic of Neandertal and early modern human features.

The Commentary of Tattersall and Schwartz is an inappropriate, inaccurate, and unethical critique of our article and the hypothesis of admixture between the Neandertals and early modern humans in Iberia. Their paper is replete with mis-information, mis-use of cladistic and anatomical terminology, mis-quotes, mis- representations, poor logic, general incompetence regarding the Late Pleistocene hominid fossil record, anatomical ignorance, and a priori non-evolutionary (typological) approaches. When considered in light
of the question of concern, the fossil evidence available, and the evolutionary and biological framework it needs to be placed into, their attempt at refutation of the admixture hypothesis is pitiful. This is combined with their inaccurate use of unpublished observations taken from an oral presentation at a scientific meeting,a serious breach of scientific etiquette.

There are three possible, and not mutually exclusive, interpretations of the nature of their Commentary. First, they are simply ignorant of the relevant aspects of the field, both through the original fossils and recent human skeletal remains and the readily available published literature (including the substance of the paper they were commenting upon). Second, they are so committed to their a priori point of view that they subconsciously distort the empirical record to fit their views. Three, they are intellectually dishonest. Any combination of these interpretations reflects a fundamental incompetence and an attitude which have no place in scientific discourse on human evolution."

Well, they just sequenced the Neanderthal DNA, and looks like Trinkaus was right. Neanderthal was as human as us, they are us, not only not a different species, plenty of humans are closer to Neanderthal than to each other. Dependng on who you are, closer than a so called "race". Turns out Trinkaus was right about Tattersall.

Oh yeah, and looks like the found the Garden of Eden recently too, and it's exactly like the one in Genesis...



The Sordid Details of Neanderthal's Sex Life

Most people have heard of "Eve". That comes from DNA that's of no importance, and not in the nucleus and doesn't have anything to do with what you look like or how fast you can run. They measured that because it was easy. In May 2010, they published the the Neanderthal nuclear DNA. All that Eve stuff is now proved meaningless. the last common ancestor of existing humans isn't 150,000 years ago, it's probably over a million, long before there was a "Neanderthal" which is shorthand for a European over 30,000 years ago. Big news in December 2010 is that they found the cousin of Neanderthal in East Asia, also within the modern range, and contributing genes to those in Asia like Neanderthal did in Europe. In a nutshell, Neanderthals, their eastern cousins the Denisovans (Neanderthals that wandered into East Asia 400,000 years ago), and existing Europeans/Asians have 1% to 4% of their genes in common, and they aren't found in sub-Saharan Africans. You can create almost any late Neanderthal, with the genes of 50 ex

isting humans chosen at random, from around the world. That's how well we are mixed. A roomfull of us carry virtually the entire Neanderthal genetic blueprint for virtually all late Neanderthals.

In a nutshell, the conclusion of the breakthrough May papers was that Neanderthal was virtually identical to us, but no big sign of late European interbreeding since those in SE Asia have the same percentage of Neanderthal, non-African genes. And they thought that Neanderthal, for 500,000 years, couldn't find China. But the December 2010 paper demonstrates they found it 400,000 years ago. Finally found some bones. Papers not an easy read, but pop culture articles are easy to find. All for personal use only...

The main DNA paper...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full.html

The associated protein paper...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/723.abstract

The materials and methods for the protein paper
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2010/05/05/328.5979.723.DC1/Burbano.SOM.pdf

And an article from the NY Times on the brand new (at the moment) Neanderthal cousins in Asia actual paper publicly unavailable for free.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/science/23ancestor.html

So, it's been one big interbreeding family, one Universal Brotherhood of Man for millions of years. No inferior species. No other species at all. Not even remotely close. But there is strong evidence that there was a big expansion, from where Europe, Asia and Africa meet, sometime in the last 100,000 years. And it interbred and left a genetic imprint from Iceland to Australia. And that big winner, during that millions of years long Brotherhood of Man, was the most mixed, the half-breed mongrels of the Garden of Eden...



The Garden of Eden

Lost Civilization Under Persian Gulf?

ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2010) -- A once fertile landmass now submerged beneath the Persian Gulf may have been home to some of the earliest human populations outside Africa, according to an article published in Current Anthropology.

Jeffrey Rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the University of Birmingham in the U.K., says that the area in and around this "Persian Gulf Oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the Indian Ocean around 8,000 years ago. Rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the Near East, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.

In recent years, archaeologists have turned up evidence of a wave of human settlements along the shores of the Gulf dating to about 7,500 years ago. "Where before there had been but a handful of scattered hunting camps, suddenly, over 60 new archaeological sites appear virtually overnight," Rose said. "These settlements boast well-built, permanent stone houses, long-distance trade networks, elaborately decorated pottery, domesticated animals, and even evidence for one of the oldest boats in the world."

But how could such highly developed settlements pop up so quickly, with no precursor populations to be found in the archaeological record? Rose believes that evidence of those preceding populations is missing because it's under the Gulf....

"Perhaps it is no coincidence that the founding of such remarkably well developed communities along the shoreline corresponds with the flooding of the Persian Gulf basin around 8,000 years ago," Rose said. "These new colonists may have come from the heart of the Gulf, displaced by rising water levels that plunged the once fertile landscape beneath the waters of the Indian Ocean."

Historical sea level data show that, prior to the flood, the Gulf basin would have been above water beginning about 75,000 years ago. And it would have been an ideal refuge from the harsh deserts surrounding it, with fresh water supplied by the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun, and Wadi Baton Rivers, as well as by underground springs. When conditions were at their driest in the surrounding hinterlands, the Gulf Oasis would have been at its largest in terms of exposed land area. At its peak, the exposed basin would have been about the size of Great Britain, Rose says.

Evidence is also emerging that modern humans could have been in the region even before the oasis was above water. Recently discovered archaeological sites in Yemen and Oman have yielded a stone tool style that is distinct from the East African tradition. That raises the possibility that humans were established on the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula beginning as far back as 100,000 years ago or more, Rose says. That is far earlier than the estimates generated by several recent migration models, which place the first successful migration into Arabia between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago.

The Gulf Oasis would have been available to these early migrants, and would have provided "a sanctuary throughout the Ice Ages when much of the region was rendered uninhabitable due to hyperaridity," Rose said. "The presence of human groups in the oasis fundamentally alters our understanding of human emergence and cultural evolution in the ancient Near East."

It also hints that vital pieces of the human evolutionary puzzle may be hidden in the depths of the Persian Gulf.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208151609.htm

East of Israel, and four rivers two of which are the Tigris and Euphrates, and springs, and a river running through it, and it being like paradise and the birth of humanity? Sure seems that sounds familiar...

Genesis 2:

... streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 [Check on the springs] Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. [Check on the first humans like us (to a large extent). Left out bacteria and so on between dust and humans, but the general idea, didn't make 'em out of magic demons or something.]

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, [check, due east from Israel] in Eden; [that's how the scientist describes it, like Eden] and there he put the man he had formed. 9 [Exactly what the scientist just said ]The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. [Check] In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. [No doubt notions of good and evil were to a large extent from there. The birth of cities was, and we all know about the evil there. :)]

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. [Check on the four rivers, check on the Tigris and Euphrates, check on them forming the main river through Eden.]



Conclusions:

If someone looks different from you, don't assume they are distantly related and inferior.

The more mixed the genetics, the stronger. Have kids with someone from the other side of the planet.

The human race, all of it, every one that walks on two legs, has been one big interbreeding family for over a million years, one Universal Brotherhood of Man.

[passer...@gmail.com]

And of course, current events is they've found Homo Erectus genes in Australians and Melanesians. We've found Homo Erectus skulls 30k years ago, in Indonesia, not like it's a shock. So, it's been one species, since long before Homo Erectus, well over a million years ago. Animals, it takes over 5 million years to be a different species, incapable of breeding. We could probably breed with Lucy.

And everyone that think's is a coincidence that the shortest human beings on earth being little Rampasassa, right next to the Hobbit cave, raise your hand. It took them a while to develop the courage to sequence Australian nuclear DNA, scared of what they'd find, didn't fit in with their deliberate lies. Some day they will have the courage to sequence on of those tiny citizens of the tiny village of Rampasassa. They say the Hobbits may have branched at the time of Lucy, long before Homo Erectus.

[erik simpson]

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:51:23 AM UTC-7, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> And of course, current events is they've found Homo Erectus genes in Australians and Melanesians. We've found Homo Erectus skulls 30k years ago, in Indonesia, not like it's a shock. So, it's been one species, since long before Homo Erectus, well over a million years ago. Animals, it takes over 5 million years to be a different species, incapable of breeding. We could probably breed with Lucy.
>
>
>
> And everyone that think's is a coincidence that the shortest human beings on earth being little Rampasassa, right next to the Hobbit cave, raise your hand. It took them a while to develop the courage to sequence Australian nuclear DNA, scared of what they'd find, didn't fit in with their deliberate lies. Some day they will have the courage to sequence on of those tiny citizens of the tiny village of Rampasassa. They say the Hobbits may have branched at the time of Lucy, long before Homo Erectus.

Do you have a reference for homo erectus DNA recovery? That we most likely
share genes with homo erectus wouldn't be surprising, since it seems most
likely that homo e. is at least nearly ancestral to modern humans, but it's
quite unlikely that we could be considered as belonging to the same species.

[passer...@gmail.com]

This is GENES, not DNA Pairs. I know I'm going to have to explain that, because of all the deliberate lying propaganda in human origins, but here's hoping.

Chimps share 25% of their Genes with humans. (Jellyfish probably share 90% of their base pairs.) The propaganda likes to use base pairs, because it sounds better, that genes are what matters is of no importance. A twisted political agenda, not science.

Melanesians/Australians share about 92% of their genes with sub-Saharan Africans, the difference is overwhelmingly Denisovan with a little Homo Erectus.

Neanderthals share 99.99% of their genes with existing Europeans. Maybe 100.000%.

So, what does that make people that say Neanderthal was a different species?

And that 3% of their genes that Europeans and Neanderthal have in common that sub-Saharan Africans don't have? With all three groups sharing that other 97%? That 97% did NOT come from the Africans. No one knows how much came from each. Trinkaus guesses it's 20% Neanderthal. But no one knows.

They didn't care about science, their political agenda, while well intentioned, fighting racism, was that we all had a common ancestor recently, so we all feel more closely related. But it went the way of all deliberate political lies, it was eventually found out. So, now what do they do. Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than Africans on the level of genes/proteins, and they've been saying Neanderthals are an inferior (and yes they used that word) species, incapable of speech and breeding with a human.

[Mark Buchanan]

Two point:

1. Evolution theory would show all human are so closely related that
there is no reason to claim any ethnic group is superior or inferior to
any other.

2. Some Christians have claimed that the bible proves some ethnic groups
are inferior - even created separately by god.

Racism is not restricted to evolutionist or creationists.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 05/04/2014 18:04, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is GENES, not DNA Pairs. I know I'm going to have to explain that, because of all the deliberate lying propaganda in human origins, but here's hoping.
>
> Chimps share 25% of their Genes with humans. (Jellyfish probably share 90% of their base pairs.) The propaganda likes to use base pairs, because it sounds better, that genes are what matters is of no importance. A twisted political agenda, not science.

Chimps share far more than 25% of their genes with humans; what you may
mean is that chimps have the same allele as humans at 25% of loci, but
you've got enough of the other numbers wrong that I don't trust this number.

Jellyfish differ by rather more than 10% of the base pairs; 90% is in
the ballpark for mice and rats.

>
> Melanesians/Australians share about 92% of their genes with sub-Saharan Africans, the difference is overwhelmingly Denisovan with a little Homo Erectus.
>
> Neanderthals share 99.99% of their genes with existing Europeans. Maybe 100.000%.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. What you write gives the impression that
Neanderthals are closer to Europeans than Melanesians are to subsaharan
Africans. That is far from the truth. The average human outside
sub-Saharan Africa has 3% of loci with alleles that originate from
Neanderthal populations rather than African populations; the great
majority of loci have African rather than Neanderthal alleles.

You could try to spin your claim as that all of the Neanderthal genome
is known at low frequencies in extra African populations. (Which is not
consistent with the claim you make about Melanesians and Africans.) But
Neanderthal mtDNA, for example, has not been found in modern human
populations in spite of lots of looking.

>
> So, what does that make people that say Neanderthal was a different species?

The status of Neandertals has long been unclear. The degree of
differentiation lies of the cusp of being a separate species and not
being a separate species. The mtDNA data, wherein Neandertals and
anatomically modern humans are clearly distinguished pushed the pendulum
towards considering them a separate species; the discovery of
Neandertal-derived alleles in modern populations has pushed the pendulum
back the other way.

>
> And that 3% of their genes that Europeans and Neanderthal have in common that sub-Saharan Africans don't have? With all three groups sharing that other 97%? That 97% did NOT come from the Africans. No one knows how much came from each. Trinkaus guesses it's 20% Neanderthal. But no one knows.

Europeans are closer to Africans than they are to Neandertals. Africans
are closer to Europeans than they are to Neandertals. Neandertals are
the outgroup, but because of introgression are closer to Europeans than
to Africans.

>
> They didn't care about science, their political agenda, while well intentioned, fighting racism, was that we all had a common ancestor recently, so we all feel more closely related. But it went the way of all deliberate political lies, it was eventually found out. So, now what do they do. Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than Africans on the level of genes/proteins, and they've been saying Neanderthals are an inferior (and yes they used that word) species, incapable of speech and breeding with a human.

By introducing that ad-hominem, you lead me to question your motives for
exaggerating the differences between Africans and other modern humans.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Robert Carnegie]

Most people seem to be noticing mainly the part about
Neanderthal humans. But in your "Garden of Eden" bit,
there is an African elephant in the room. It is fairly
clear that that primates, including ourselves, are
from Africa. This Persian Atlantis story is nothing to
do with that.

[Robert Carnegie]

Most people seem to be noticing mainly the part about
Neanderthal humans. But in your "Garden of Eden" bit,
there is an African elephant in the room. It is fairly
clear that that primates, including ourselves, are
from Africa. This Persian Atlantis story is nothing to
do with that.

On Saturday, 5 April 2014 17:40:49 UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

[passer...@gmail.com]

I agree Mark. But Darwin has always been the darling of racists, they love Darwin. Eugenicists type of racists too. Or rather their twisted version of it. How ironic, Hitler's ancestral superman he sent teams around the world to find, was there in the German museums all along. And the cartoons of what it looked like was exactly like his cartoons of the Jews.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Earnest I said a couple posts ago I don't read segmented posts, but it wasn't addressed to you and I'm new here so I'll respond to the first part. This is the author of the gene/protein paper, co-published with the DNA base pair paper. These guys aren't the top experts on the planet, the are the only ones. No one else can sequence the stuff, and over 50 of the top scientists in the world, signed the paper published in Science. The 75/25% is paragraph 4 and the number for Neanderthals of 70k years ago and existing humans is about 99.99% or greater.

Neandertals 'Hardly Differed at All' from Modern Humans

ScienceDaily (May 6, 2010) -- How much do we, who are alive today, differ from our most recent evolutionary ancestors, the cave-dwelling Neandertals, hominids who lived in Europe and parts of Asia and went extinct about 30,000 years ago? And how much do Neandertals, in turn, have in common with the ape-ancestors from which we are both descended, the chimpanzees?

Although we are both hominids, the fossil record told us long ago that we differ physically from Neandertals, in various ways. But at the level of genes and the proteins that they encode, new research published online May 6 in the journal Science reveals that we differ hardly at all. It also indicates that we both -- Neandertals and modern humans -- differ from the chimps in virtually identical ways.

"The astonishing implication of the work we've just published," says Prof. Gregory Hannon, Ph.D., of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), "is that we are incredibly similar to Neandertals at the level of the proteome, which is the full set of proteins that our genes encode."

..."The overwhelming majority of chimp proteins -- about 75% -- are different from ours in at least one amino-acid 'letter," according to Hannon. These amino-acid changes are in most instances slight, but the resulting functional differences -- the way they affect what proteins do in cells -- can be great, and presumably help to explain many of our differences from chimpanzees.

Eighty-eight amino-acid differences -- and what they might signify

Hannon's team applied its focused sequencing method on those areas in the Neandertal sample obtained from Dr. Pääbo, and, after several rounds of refinement, they arrived at the number 88: they found only 88 changes in Neandertal protein sequences compared with the modern human. Hannon calls this number "astonishing."

At an early stage of the study, the team identified many more protein differences -- about 1000 -- between modern man and the specific Neandertal individual sampled, a male who died about 49,000 years ago in a cave called El Sidrón, in Spain. But that initial figure was based on comparing the Neandertal sequence to that of the modern human reference genome. When the teams incorporated into their calculations variations in the modern human code that they catalogued in 50 individuals from a range of modern ethnic groups, the number of human-Neandertal protein differences dropped from over 1000 to only 88.

Although Hannon says it will be important to study the functional role of the 88 proteins, he expects that many may prove "neutral," functionally. These would be changes in the genetic code that do not issue in any difference in the function of the associated proteins. If even more human genome samples -- say, from 500 contemporary individuals rather than 50 -- were included in the comparison, the number of differences might drop again, Hannon believes. And if additional Neandertal samples were factored into the comparison, he says, "it's possible that that the number of differences could approach zero."

In short, Hannon says, "the news, so far, is not about how we differ from Neandertals, but how we are so nearly identical.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100506141559.htm

[passer...@gmail.com]

Top scientists and yes I could go fetch it for you, seem to think the famous Neanderthal/African mixing happened in the Persian Gulf Area. Neanderthals and Africans mixed there for hundreds of thousands of years. We have teeth 300k back of both and the famous caves they alternately inhabited in Israel for tens of thousands of years and the bones of the skulls looking a heck of a lot alike. It's a pain going to fetch it, because I already know it, but if it's important to you I'll do that for you. I'm assuming you are aware of the hundreds of thousands of years of being around each other in the general area and the only thing mysterious is the Persian Gulf part.

[TomS]

"On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 13:40:01 -0700 (PDT), in article
<e8862ef3-4746-4c44...@googlegroups.com>, passer...@gmail.com
stated..."
[[...snip...]]

>I agree Mark. But Darwin has always been the darling of racists, they love
>Darwin. Eugenicists type of racists too. Or rather their twisted version of it.

[[...snip...]]

Houston Stewart Chamberlain had a low opinion of Darwin. Hitler never
mentioned his name.

Eugenicists believed that natural causes would (contra Darwin's power
of natural selection) only lead to degeneracy (and that purposeful
intervention was needed).

None of them had any interest in the origin of species.


--
---Tom S.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Hitler and Eugenicists had no interest in Darwin? You have to be kidding. I need to go look THAT up for you? the ones that didn't agree with Darwin was the opposite spectrum of totalitarianism, Stalinist Russia.

[Mark Buchanan]

While you are at it, look up how many active racist groups mention Darwin.

[alias Ernest Major]

Shutting your eyes to refutations doesn't make them go away.

What you now quote specifically refutes one of your claims. You claimed
that chimps share 25% of their genes with humans. The material your
quote says that 25% of chimp proteins (not genes) are identifical to the
corresponding human proteins; because of the redundancy of the genetic
code there are silent exon changes which don't effect the protein, so
the number of genes with identical exon sequences is less. If you
consider intron sequences as well the number is reduced further.

The remainder of your erroneous claims are not addressed by what you now
quote.

--
alias Ernest Major

[TomS]

"On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 14:11:05 -0700 (PDT), in article
<61f86367-2107-427e...@googlegroups.com>, passer...@gmail.com
stated..."

I said that Hitler had no interest in Darwin, and that the eugenicists
had no interest in the origin of species. And that the eugenicists
rejected the central concept of "Darwinism", that *natural* selection
could be positive (and that they rather believed that - well, *intelligent*
direction was needed to avert degeneracy).


--
---Tom S.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Here you go Mark, you need to thank me, something I grabbed in 15 seconds, there are probably hundreds of thousands more. Here's a quote from Darwin himself...

""If ... various checks ... do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule."
If that isn't Eugenics, what is?

And this...

"I suspect that, just as a lot of folks haven't read Darwin's execrable Descent of Man, so also they feel free to enter the debate without having read Hitler's Mein Kampf.

As Hitler made clear in Mein Kampf, the fundamental political category is biological. Consequently, "the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a State or Government but rather the conservation of the race." This aim accords with Hitler's larger Darwinian view of the cosmos, wherein the "fundamental law of necessity" reigning "throughout the realm of Nature" is that "existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife....where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Survival of the fittest."

http://www.humanevents.com/2008/05/05/darwin-and-hitler-in-their-own-words/

[Burkhard]

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:40:01 PM UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>

>
> > Racism is not restricted to evolutionist or creationists.
>
>
>
> I agree Mark. But Darwin has always been the darling of racists, they love Darwin. Eugenicists type of racists too.

Well, some racists have undoubtedly thought that Darwin gave scientific credibility t their views.
In general however I'd say rather not. Racists, in particular the supremacist type, wants to
imbue nature with objective values, something that really does not fit the Darwinian notion
that there is no goal in evolution, no objective better, just a temporary fit to the contingent
environment,

Hence for very racist who claims to embrace Darwin, you'll find 10 who spit on his grave.

As for instance the KKK did, for whom Darwin was anathema:

"In the words of a commentator from the period the KKK had become '...
at once anti-Negro, anti-Alien, anti-Red, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew,
anti-Darwin, anti-Modern, anti-Liberal, Fundamentalist, vastly Moral,
militantly Protestant.'"
(Smith, Page Redeeming the Time: A People's History of the 1920s and
the New Deal, vol.8, New York, 1987, p.3).

For the Klan at least, Darwin was atheist and materialist demagoguery,
undermining any metaphysical value of the whet race. (Agassiz, Darwin's
creationist contemporary by contrast was held in high regard by the
pro-slavery faction, and Josiah C. Nott amongst others thought
his counsel in support of the claim that God has created all races
separately)

[alias Ernest Major]

Hitler and Stalin disagreed with Darwin in different ways. Hitler may
have been a creationist. Stalin was a Lamarckian.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

--
alias Ernest Major

[passer...@gmail.com]

Man, you actually think Eugenicists don't believe in natural selection. Oh my goodness. They, like Darwin himself, think natural selection is being thwarted by society and the weak need to be killed off, or at least disposed of somehow.

It's just absurd to claim Eugenicists weren't driven by Darwin. If you mean that one book, what the heck are you on about? You agree on Darwin but are trying to make some point about that one book or something?

[passer...@gmail.com]

You don't know that it's almost always one gene per protein? THAT is news I have to explain to you?

I don't care if you think there's a pink elephant hiding in the cell, all DNA does is make protein. All that comes out that matters is protein. So, should his ballpark 25% actually be 24.999% because it's not one gene per protein like they used to think? No, he rounded it off to two places and any difference is smaller than that.

Not exactly exotic knowledge here. Ninth grade biology.

[Mark Buchanan]

On 4/5/2014 5:46 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 5, 2014 5:21:13 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>> On 4/5/2014 5:11 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, April 5, 2014 5:02:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
>>
>>>> "On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 13:40:01 -0700 (PDT), in article
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> <e8862ef3-4746-4c44...@googlegroups.com>, passer...@gmail.com
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> stated..."
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> [[...snip...]]
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> I agree Mark. But Darwin has always been the darling of racists, they love
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Darwin. Eugenicists type of racists too. Or rather their twisted version of it.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> [[...snip...]]
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Houston Stewart Chamberlain had a low opinion of Darwin. Hitler never
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> mentioned his name.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Eugenicists believed that natural causes would (contra Darwin's power
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> of natural selection) only lead to degeneracy (and that purposeful
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> intervention was needed).
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> None of them had any interest in the origin of species.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> --
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> ---Tom S.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Hitler and Eugenicists had no interest in Darwin? You have to be kidding. I need to go look THAT up for you? the ones that didn't agree with Darwin was the opposite spectrum of totalitarianism, Stalinist Russia.
>>
>>>
>>
>> While you are at it, look up how many active racist groups mention Darwin.
>
> Here you go Mark, you need to thank me, something I grabbed in 15 seconds, there are probably hundreds of thousands more. Here's a quote from Darwin himself...

I said 'active racist groups', meaning groups currently promoting
racism. There are plenty of white supremest groups that would do. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:White_supremacist_groups_in_the_United_States

[Dai monie]

From the link you provided:
< Thus, even if no gene flow occurred, in many segments of the genome, Neandertals are expected to be more closely related to some present-day humans than they are to each other (20).>

In many segments of the genome, not in the entire genome.

The following:
< We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.>

Is the conclusion. Not some fictional stuff about humans and neanderthalers being the same; they never did say that.

[Roger Shrubber]

passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> You don't know that it's almost always one gene per protein? THAT is
> news I have to explain to you?

No, absolutely false.
Gene corresponds to a locus in DNA. Allele corresponds to a specific
exemplar of a gene. Thus, different alleles can produce variant
exemplars of a protein with the caveat that distinct alleles can
in fact produce the identical protein sequence, but owing to
things like codon usage effects, alter the rate at which the
proteins are produced and thus the effective concentration of
those proteins within a cell.

The relevance of this is that there is a high degree of conservation
between species in terms of "genes" while there is a significantly
less conservation in terms of "alleles". Homologous genes are
recognized in the sense that the proteins encoded by the respective
genes perform similar functions and of course usually share very
high degrees of sequence similarity.

The vocabulary of genes, alleles, homologues etc. is not
ambiguous. Passerby gets it wrong.

Moreover, many genes encode functional RNA instead of
protein, ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and tRNA are the most
obvious examples but there are others. Passerby's
ignorance of elementary biochemistry is not very
surprising given the rest of his behavior. It is in
fact entirely consistent with his behavior.

[TomS]

"On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT), in article
<31210ca7-d75b-42f2...@googlegroups.com>, passer...@gmail.com

You are aware that the early 20th century, when eugenists thrived, has
been called the "eclipse of darwinism" because the productivity of
natural selection was not realized.

I don't know what you are referring to by "that one book".


--
---Tom S.

[jillery]

The racist groups I know about violently reject the idea they are
related to "them", or at least so very far above them that they
consider themselves in a separate class altogether.

[Burkhard]

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 10:11:05 PM UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> <snip

> Hitler and Eugenicists had no interest in Darwin? You have to be kidding. I need to go look THAT up for you?

Oh please do - maybe you can find what not even Weikart could,
who made a full cottage industry out of quote mining Nazi
literature to construct the most tenuous connection between the two,
and find an actual quote where Hitler discusses Darwin.

There may well have been some Nazis who had some interest in Darwin,
Alfred Krupp e.g. but not in the inner circle which was dominated by
lawyers, accountants, historians, philosophers and theologians, not biologists.
The closest you get there are people who studied agriculture, and that makes of
course perfect sense - what they had in mind was a gigantic human breeding
project - artificial selection, not natural selection which they distrusted.

Hitler's own views were diametrically opposed to the central ideas of the ToE:
he was in essence a species fixist:

"The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only
the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character
in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc.,
and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength,
intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens."

Where there is derivation from this, it happens through "degeneration", essentially
the Fall-narrative, and the job of the state then becomes one of active intervention
to restore the objective ideal - another irreconcilable difference to the Darwinian
notion tha no trait is in itself superior, but only more or less helpful in a given
environment.

So you won't find any mention of Darwin by Hitler, and his cronies were either
not interested, or openly hostile:

2 quotes from the journal "Biologie und
Nationalsozialismus, Zeitschrift fuer die Gesamte Naturwissenschaft",
which was at the time the official organ of the Section
"Natural Science" of the "Reich's Students
Administration", so statements there had particular impact on teaching and
formulated official positions on ideology:

Kurt Hildebrandt,, a high-ish ranking party official, wrote"
(my rough translation): "We have to reject Haeckel's simplistic
assumption that philosophy reached its pinnacle in the mechanistic
solution to the world puzzles through Darwin's descent theory."

Guenther Hecht, another official from the NSDAP Rassenpolitischen Amt
(roughly Department for Race Policies)
wrote in the same issue (remember tha darwin was promoted in Germany
mainly through Haeckel):

"The common position of materialistic monism is
philosophically rejected completely by the voelkisch-biological view of
National Socialism. [. . .] The party and its representatives must
not only reject a part of the Haeckelian conception [...]
but, more generally, every internal
party dispute that involves the particulars of research and the
teachings of Haeckel must cease.( Guenther Hecht, "Biologie und
Nationalsozialismus, Zeitschrift fuer die Gesamte Naturwissenschaft 3
(1937-1938): 280-290, at 285.

Darwin was way too materialistic for their liking. That is also reflected
by the fact that in 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for
lending libraries, added to their banned list

"Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with
the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)."

[alias Ernest Major]

On 05/04/2014 22:52, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> You don't know that it's almost always one gene per protein? THAT is news I have to explain to you?

I thought it was only segmented posts that you didn't read. Your reply
is non-responsive. (Your problem may be that you're trying to use 9th
grade biology to understand material at a higher level.)

Let's try again. Your claimed that chimps share 25% of their genes with
humans. Sharing genes usually means that there are homologous genes in
both genomes. But you have used it in a different way, to mean that the
genes are identical.

However the material you cite in supposed support only says that 25% of
proteins are identical. That is not an equivalent claim. You can have
identical proteins without having identical genes - there are what are
called silent mutations that change the DNA sequence without changing
the amino acid residue sequence in the protein. (This a consequence of
there being 64 DNA codons representing 20 - 21 if you count the kludged
encoding of selenocysteine - amino acid residues, plus a protein
termination code.) So the corresponding genes for some proportion of the
25% identical proteins will be non-identical. That's so even if you
restrict the concept of a gene to the exons; when you count the introns,
which don't correspond to any bit of the protein at all, the proportion
of non-identical genes goes up.

I don't know how large the difference is, but your claim that only 0.2
genes (based on a rounded figure of 20,000 genes in toto) have silent
mutations separating humans and chimps is self evidently ridiculous.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 14:52:42 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>You don't know that it's almost always one gene per protein? THAT is news I have to explain to you?
>
>I don't care if you think there's a pink elephant hiding in the cell, all DNA does is make protein. All that comes out that matters is protein. So, should his ballpark 25% actually be 24.999% because it's not one gene per protein like they used to think? No, he rounded it off to two places and any difference is smaller than that.
>
>Not exactly exotic knowledge here. Ninth grade biology.

A problem with your recollection of ninth grade science is that
science has discovered new evidence since then. For example, I bet
you think there are nine planets in the Solar System.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome:

"The haploid human genome contains approximately 20,000 protein-coding
genes, significantly fewer than had been anticipated. Protein-coding
sequences account for only a very small fraction of the genome
(approximately 1.5%), ..."

So over 98% of the 3 billion+ base pairs of the human genome has
nothing to do with making proteins.

And of those genes that do produce proteins, produce multiple and
different proteins, and multiple genes produce parts of single
proteins.

[passer...@gmail.com]

I thought we were going to ignore each other. Guess not.

Ok another Darwin Thumper that is totally oblivious to the one gene per protein thing (which I'd better qualify every single solitary time by saying it's not exactly one to one but very very close, there's some here with no interest in pursuing truth.)

Since I rather doubt any link I provide will do much good, perhaps you should google "one gene per protein". This is elementary genetics, not exactly exotic knowledge to someone discussing genetics.

Your musing of some pink kangaroo behind the couch isn't science it's wishful thinking, all that comes out, all that was tested, all that does anything outside the cell, is the proteins. And they are the same. What the pink kangaroo does is of no importance.

[passer...@gmail.com]

No, virtually no one said that time was the "eclipse of Darwinism" and some perceived general mood has nothing to do with the explicit Darwinian racism of the Eugenicists.

[jillery]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 17:41:51 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>I thought we were going to ignore each other. Guess not.
>
>Ok another Darwin Thumper that is totally oblivious to the one gene per protein thing (which I'd better qualify every single solitary time by saying it's not exactly one to one but very very close, there's some here with no interest in pursuing truth.)
>
>Since I rather doubt any link I provide will do much good, perhaps you should google "one gene per protein". This is elementary genetics, not exactly exotic knowledge to someone discussing genetics.
>
>Your musing of some pink kangaroo behind the couch isn't science it's wishful thinking, all that comes out, all that was tested, all that does anything outside the cell, is the proteins. And they are the same. What the pink kangaroo does is of no importance.

I took up your Google challenge. The first hit is this Wikipedia
article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_gene-one_enzyme_hypothesis

which contains the following in its first paragraph:

"Although it has been extremely influential, the hypothesis was
recognized soon after its proposal to be an oversimplification. Even
the subsequent reformulation of the "one gene-one polypeptide"
hypothesis is now considered too simple to describe the relationship
between genes and proteins."

I didn't look at all of the 60 million hits (I hope you understand),
but the ones I did check included similar statements.

As an aside, did you notice how your post had swelled to over lines?
For someone who expresses such an obsession with other posters'
formatting, you don't pay much attention to your own. Just sayin'.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Your unmeasured pink kangaroo ideas of what might be going on isn't science, what's measured, is the proteins coming out. You hoping there might be completely different genes, making 99.99% the same proteins by some bizarre coincidence is to be charitable, blind faith.

And ".2 genes" what the heck is that? One fifth of a gene it's nonsense. The difference listed, accepting your 20k number, is much less than 88, which is over 99.5% the same. Not complicated math. And he says the number is much smaller than 88 and may approach zero.

And regardless if your pink kangaroos doing something hidden in the cells, the proteins and almost dead certainly the genes, of Europeans and Neanderthals are 99.99% the same and both are only 97% the same as Africans. Melanesians are 92% the same as Africans.

[passer...@gmail.com]

And every single solitary time I said it, Jillery, I pointed out that it wasn't dead exact, because it's dead certain someone will lie and claim I did.

Now you point out it's not dead exact. It's 99.99% the same and the only difference is very very rarely it's more than one gene per protein.

This is an evolution site and you guys are Evolution Thumpers and you don't even know the one gene per protein basics (not exact I always have to mention too as you just demonstrated.)

[jillery]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 18:24:51 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>And every single solitary time I said it, Jillery, I pointed out that it wasn't dead exact, because it's dead certain someone will lie and claim I did.
>
>Now you point out it's not dead exact. It's 99.99% the same and the only difference is very very rarely it's more than one gene per protein.
>
>This is an evolution site and you guys are Evolution Thumpers and you don't even know the one gene per protein basics (not exact I always have to mention too as you just demonstrated.)

Actually, I pointed out that your claim isn't even close, and you
provide nothing to support what you say. The position of Chief
Bloviator has plenty of applicants ahead of you. Get in line.

[passer...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 1:01:52 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:51:23 AM UTC-7, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And of course, current events is they've found Homo Erectus genes in Australians and Melanesians. We've found Homo Erectus skulls 30k years ago, in Indonesia, not like it's a shock. So, it's been one species, since long before Homo Erectus, well over a million years ago. Animals, it takes over 5 million years to be a different species, incapable of breeding. We could probably breed with Lucy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And everyone that think's is a coincidence that the shortest human beings on earth being little Rampasassa, right next to the Hobbit cave, raise your hand. It took them a while to develop the courage to sequence Australian nuclear DNA, scared of what they'd find, didn't fit in with their deliberate lies. Some day they will have the courage to sequence on of those tiny citizens of the tiny village of Rampasassa. They say the Hobbits may have branched at the time of Lucy, long before Homo Erectus.
>
>
>
> Do you have a reference for homo erectus DNA recovery? That we most likely
>
> share genes with homo erectus wouldn't be surprising, since it seems most
>
> likely that homo e. is at least nearly ancestral to modern humans, but it's
>
> quite unlikely that we could be considered as belonging to the same species.

More Genomes From Denisova Cave Show Mixing of Early Human Groups

Elizabeth Pennisi

Researchers have analyzed three fossil samples from Denisova Cave using a powerful new method that reveals ancient genomes in brilliant detail. One sample, a Neandertal toe bone, has yielded a nearly complete, high-coverage genome of our closest cousins, reported paleogeneticist Svante Pääbo from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, at The Biology of Genomes meeting last week. The analyses paint a complex picture of mingling among ancient human groups, and the data suggest inbreeding in Neandertals, a large Denisovan population, and mixing between Denisovans and an even earlier mystery species.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/799.summary

There's also stuff showing it in the Melanesian/Australian nuclear DNA.

[Mitchell Coffey]

The passage attributed to Darwin, below, is a deliberate misquotation -
the ellipses should be a give away. The full passage, together with the
page or two before, show that Darwin was actually saying that
"intemperate, profligate, and criminal classes" for various reasons tend
not to reproduce as a great a rate as other people, and therefore the
problems alleged by people we would call eugenicists are not as serious
as they claim. Darwin is in fact arguing against eugenics here.

Mitchell Coffey

[Burkhard]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:44:34 AM UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No, virtually no one said that time was the "eclipse of Darwinism" and some perceived general mood has nothing to do with the explicit Darwinian racism of the Eugenicists.

Julian Huxely did, in his 1942 book. Evolution: the modern synthesis, p.22.-28.
The expression was four so apt that historians of science adapted it as a pretty
accurate description of the impact of Darwin's thought before the modern synthesis
came for the rescue, e.g. Bowler, Peter J. (1983). The Eclipse of Darwinism:
anti-Darwinian evolutionary theories in the decades around 1900.:

[TomS]

"On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 17:44:34 -0700 (PDT), in article
<e4cdecc0-14fd-4eb6...@googlegroups.com>, passer...@gmail.com

You do not choose to give any coherent argument, but lest one
think I am without rebuttal, I just point the interested reader to the
article "Hitler and evolution" at RationalWiki.org, and the
references cited there:

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution>

(Excuse me, btw, for not trimming much of the above. I do not want to
give the impression that I am hiding something pertinent. I do not
want to spend wasted energy.)


--
---Tom S.

[alias Ernest Major]

Incorrect. That genes with different sequences can produce the exact
same sequence is an observed fact and elementary molecular genetics.

About one quarter of mutations in protein coding DNA are silent. (If you
ignore codon frequency variation it's 24%, but since that exists I'll
stick to a round 25%. If you assume that all protein sequence
differences are neutral and that there is no selection against protein
changes, then for each three genes with a difference in the encoded
protein there should be one with a silent mutation. If we further assume
mutations are randomly distributed that means one quarter of those 25%
of genes which produce identical proteins in chimp and human contains
silent mutations, bringing the number of identical genes below 19%.

But there is a selection against protein changes, so the proportion of
silent mutations that is fixed is greater than the proportion of
non-silent mutations that is fixed. That brings the number of identical
genes down lower still.

>
> And ".2 genes" what the heck is that? One fifth of a gene it's nonsense. The difference listed, accepting your 20k number, is much less than 88, which is over 99.5% the same. Not complicated math. And he says the number is much smaller than 88 and may approach zero.

Indeed it's nonsense. But it's your nonsense. It's what your percentage
figures (24.999% versus 25%) say.

>
> And regardless if your pink kangaroos doing something hidden in the cells, the proteins and almost dead certainly the genes, of Europeans and Neanderthals are 99.99% the same and both are only 97% the same as Africans. Melanesians are 92% the same as Africans.
>

Different measures of genetic similarity cannot be mixed and matched as
you are doing. What is your motivation for incorrectly describing the
recent (~150,000 year old) origin of modern human populations as a
politically motivated lie and exagerrating the differences among modern
human populations?

--
alias Ernest Major

[passer...@gmail.com]

Darwin isn't a religion you worship, Mitchell, it's not truth or knowledge it's science and it predicts experiments, nothing more and nothing less. He was a man with flaws like most of us have, not some pagan god.

[passer...@gmail.com]

There's a whole zoo of agenda history of Nazism like that. Atheists saying he worshipped the Jews as he exterminated them is rather special. And of course the right saying he as a leftist socialist. Now we have the comical nonsense that his racial superiority wasn't based on Evolution and the survival of the fittest becase some worship it like a religion and that sacred thing can do no wrong.

[alias Ernest Major]

I suppose that I ought to mention that "completely different genes" is a
strawman.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Why do you fear my reply and hide behind a segmented post? Why not just go talk to someone else?

[passer...@gmail.com]

And this...

"The genome comparisons also show that Denisovans interbred with a mysterious fourth group of early humans also living in Eurasia at the time. That group had split from the others more than a million years ago, and may have been the group of human ancestors known as Homo erectus, which fossils show was living in Europe and Asia a million or more years ago."

And a nice chart of them all living together 50k years ago, "moderns" Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Erectus.

Yes they don't put it on the evening news. These racists pretending they are evolution scientists have been saying Homo Erectus is a different species of all things and that reflects rather poorly on Australians and Melanesians.

Evolution related to human origins is 99% political propaganda and selfish lies and 1% science.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Well, [substitute term of your choice], it doesn't produce 99.99% the same proteins by random luck.

The point is clear.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Forgot the lnk...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218133658.htm

[Dai monie]

So.. you're not going to address his post?

[Burkhard]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 12:22:47 PM UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> And a nice chart of them all living together 50k years ago, "moderns" Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Erectus.
>
>
>
> Yes they don't put it on the evening news.

Of course they do. Here what's the BBC had to report on the issue:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12059564

[alias Ernest Major]

Actually your point is unclear. I can't tell whether your
misrepresentation of the data is motivated by racism.

The reality is that the great majority of human DNA derives from a
~150,000 year old African population. There has been a small degree of
introgression from other populations as the descendants of that
population spread throughout the world.

--
alias Ernest Major

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 5:52:42 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> I don't care if you think there's a pink elephant hiding in the cell, all DNA does is make protein. All that comes out that matters is protein.

I just want to highlight this claim. All by itself it underlines just how strong your argument really is.

[RonO]

On 4/5/2014 3:53 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Earnest I said a couple posts ago I don't read segmented posts, but it wasn't addressed to you and I'm new here so I'll respond to the first part. This is the author of the gene/protein paper, co-published with the DNA base pair paper. These guys aren't the top experts on the planet, the are the only ones. No one else can sequence the stuff, and over 50 of the top scientists in the world, signed the paper published in Science. The 75/25% is paragraph 4 and the number for Neanderthals of 70k years ago and existing humans is about 99.99% or greater.
>
> Neandertals 'Hardly Differed at All' from Modern Humans
>
> ScienceDaily (May 6, 2010) -- How much do we, who are alive today, differ from our most recent evolutionary ancestors, the cave-dwelling Neandertals, hominids who lived in Europe and parts of Asia and went extinct about 30,000 years ago? And how much do Neandertals, in turn, have in common with the ape-ancestors from which we are both descended, the chimpanzees?
>

You are using out of date research. In 2010 they only have minimal
coverage of the Neandertal genome and they used only the best covered
parts of the genome for their analysis (it was not a full genome
analysis because the coverage wasn't good enough to trust a lot of the
data). They have much better data and your misinterpretations of the
data should be cleared up if you read them. PubMed search "Paabo and
Neandertal genomes" and you will get more up to date sequence information.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Paabo+and+Neandertal+genomes

There is more evidence for interbreeding, but it is minimal
interbreeding with very few possible events. For example there may have
only been two interbreeding events with Neandertal in all the time that
modern humans coexisted with them outside of Africa. Probably a time
period of over 40,000 years with one instance of interbreeding when
modern humans started to leave Africa and possibly a second instance
somewhere in Europe. There may have been two interbreeding events
between modern humans and Denisovans (one in Asia and another in
Indonesia), and Denisovans may have had limited interbreeding with a
fourth hominid distinct from Neandertal and modern humans. Neandertals
and Denisovans also had limited interbreeding, but evolved distinct
populations, probably over a half million year time period. For some
reason these populations of Homo did not freely interbreed. If they had
freely interbred we would not know the difference between Neandertal,
Denisovan, and the fourth undesignated ancient population.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12886.html

For a while this article was free, but it looks like they are currently
making people pay for it.

Ron Okimoto

[passer...@gmail.com]

Gee, why didn't you highlight an exception, forget that? Gee, wonder why? Hmmmm...

[passer...@gmail.com]

You are the racist calling people different species. I think we stay the same species for millions of years, like all other mammals.

And that 97% that Europeans and Neanderthals had in common with Africans and the 92% that Australians have in common with Africans did NOT all come from the Africans. No one knows, Trinkaus guesses 20% came from Neanderthal, and he's clearly been proven right in the past on the subject, in spades.

The 150k comes from the mtDNA which has been demonstrated to be totally worthless on the subject.

[passer...@gmail.com]

I'm up to date, Ron, what do you think I was wrong about? What data is incorrect? You forgot that part. What percentage of the proteins/genes do you think it says existing humans and Neanderthals have in common?

As for "moderns" and "Neandethals" living alongside each other for hundreds of thousands of years, and only interbreeding a "couple times" etc. if they didn't interbreed, neither one was human. If they couldn't interbreed, neither was a mammal.

[alias Ernest Major]

In the Humpty Dumpty English category.

> As for "moderns" and "Neandethals" living alongside each other for hundreds of thousands of years,
> and only interbreeding a "couple times" etc. if they didn't
interbreed, neither one was human.
> If they couldn't interbreed, neither was a mammal.

--
alias Ernest Major

[passer...@gmail.com]

Suppose you point out one other mammal that became a different species, incapable of breeding, in a few hundred thousand years?

Can't? Can't do it?

Gee, wonder why?

You'd think on an evolution forum they'd know something about evolution.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I didn't highlight an exception because anyone who knows a bit of cell biology can think of plenty. You do a fine job undermining your own arguments without any help.

[Burkhard]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 5:33:14 PM UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 12:17:04 PM UTC-4, alias Ernest Major wrote:

<snip>

>
>
>
> Suppose you point out one other mammal that became a different species, incapable of breeding, in a few hundred thousand years?
>

Put a he- wolf with a girl Chihuahua in heat in a kennel, and note the results.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Nothing I wrote indicates otherwise. I note your inability to admit your
source misrepresented what Darwin said.

Mitchell Coffey

[jillery]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 09:33:14 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Suppose you point out one other mammal that became a different species, incapable of breeding, in a few hundred thousand years?

Well you know what happens once a species is incapable of breeding...

[Paul J Gans]

passer...@gmail.com wrote:

A 3400 line post, which is possibly a new modern record1

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Dai monie]

On Sunday, 6 April 2014 17:50:09 UTC+2, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> (Snipped a lot, google groups made it a bunch of newlines)

> You are the racist calling people different species. I think we stay the same species for millions of years, like all other mammals.
>
>
>
> And that 97% that Europeans and Neanderthals had in common with Africans and the 92% that Australians have in common with Africans did NOT all come from the Africans. No one knows, Trinkaus guesses 20% came from Neanderthal, and he's clearly been proven right in the past on the subject, in spades.
>
>
>
> The 150k comes from the mtDNA which has been demonstrated to be totally worthless on the subject.

That would make him a speciest, not a racist. Race is within the species.

Additionally, I think that the experts are rather clear on what species are. You're throwing random numbers that seem awfully like cherry picking. And you haven't adressed the post in which I point out that you ommitted a significant part of a sentence in favor of what you were trying to say.

[RonO]

Your 88 amino acid substitution number for one. What are you up to date
on using that number? That paper messed up in a way. They should have
used only African genomes of modern humans to determine the base
difference between Neandertal and modern humans because they already
knew that Europeans and Asians were several percent Neandertal, and
different individuals have different bits of the Neandertal genome. So
a lot of the Neandertal genome is segregating in Europeans and Asians.
The European and Asian genomes would be expected to have some Neandertal
variation and cancel out the expected difference. This would cause an
underestimate of the protein gene differnces between modern humans and
Neandertal. It was a stupid mistake, so you expect more than 88 amino
acid differences if they did the study in order to give them a more
meaningful number. They also did not identify the derived differences
that would be Neandertal specific. Over 9000 amino acid differences
found in modern humans was found to be derived (different from chimp).
This number of derived differences occurred over a period of between 4.5
and 8 million years. Neandertals were a separate population for half a
million years, so around 6% of that 9000 difference should be variation
that is Neandertal derived independent of modern human. That would be
over 500 amino acid differences that would not identify in the study.
The 2010 study did not look for the Neandertal derived variation. They
only looked at where Modern humans varied and compared those positions
in the genes to Neandertal. They did not look for the positions where
Neandertals varied and compare them with modern humans. So they could
have missed quite a few amino acid differences.

Modern humans and Neandertal likely did not live side by side for
hundreds of thousands of years. They likely lived as isolated
populations for around half a million years before our ancestors
migrated out of Africa around 70,000 years ago. Those are the current
best estimates. Modern humans and Neandertal coexisted outside of
Africa until around 25,000 years ago when it seems that Neandertals went
extinct.

When the papers say interbreeding them mean gene flow. Some humans will
breed with farm animals, but there isn't any gene flow from humans to
the other animal populations. There may have been a lot of mating going
on between the populations of Homo in Europe and Asia, but very little
evidence of gene flow from Neandertals and Denisovans into modern humans.

Read the recent papers.

Here is the link to the 2010 paper so you can read what they did in that
study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140021/

If you check out the supplementary materials (table S1) you will see
that only 6 of their 50 modern human genomes were of African origin.
This means that 44 genomes having a couple percent Neandertal in them
were used to look for differences between modern humans and Neandertal.
They did not do the study in a way that would give your 88 amino acid
substitutions the meaning that you think it has.

Ron Okimoto

[passer...@gmail.com]

Yeah, sure, the one example would prove me wrong, but you chose not to, and decided to just run your mouth instead.

Now, how did I know I could defy you like that with impunity?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Ron, if they didn't live side by side for hundreds of thousands of years, who was living between them? What great wall separated them? Think about it, it's absurd. Plus, we have bones and teeth of both in the Levant for hundreds of thousnds of years and no signs of a great wall separating them moving back and forth. True, in many cases, there's a dispute who the bone or tooth comes from, since they are so similar, but plenty of clear cases of both.

And if they had used pure Africans, like you suggest, there's no mystery what they would find, about 97% or more of the genes/proteins would be different. But Neanderthals and existing Europeans would still be 99.99% the same.

And the 88 is because they only used 50 existing humans. It's amazing you can create an almost entire set of any particular Neanderthal's genes/proteins with just 50 existing humans. The author of the paper says with more to pick from, the number would probably approach zero. How many existing humans does it take to create a clone of you or me?

[Dai monie]

The straits of gibraltar on one end, and the river Nile on the other? Just some idea. The natural boundaries are a bit harder to traverse when you have just figured out sticks.

[RonO]

On 4/6/2014 5:08 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 4:34:29 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 4/6/2014 10:58 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 10:22:59 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>>> On 4/5/2014 3:53 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

SNIP

Modern humans were restricted to Africa until around 70,000 years ago.

I do not think that we fully understand what the barrier was between
North Africa and Asia, but during this glacial period migration out of
Africa was restricted. One hypothesis is that modern humans finally
made it out of Africa along the coast. The population of modern humans
that made it out of Africa was likely not that large, so my guess is
that it remained difficult to leave Africa even after the modern humans
started to leave. The first interbreeding (gene flow) with Neandertals
is thought to have occurred as the ancestors of European and Asian
modern humans left Africa. As the population expanded and migrated out
into Europe and Asia it took this first bit of Neandertal mixing with
it. They think a second interbreeding event occurred in Europe.

You miss the point about African genomes. To get the true difference
between Neandertals and Modern humans before the hybridization events
you need to use the African genomes that have little or no Neandertal
genetics. That is the true base difference between the two populations
of Homo. If you use Europeans the difference is reduced due to the two
interbreeding events. A lot of the variation that they claimed did not
differentiate Neandertals from European and Asian modern humans came
from Neandertals. Why shouldn't Neandertals and European and Asian
modern humans share most of the same variation? Europeans are around 5%
Neandertal and Asians are more than 2%. It only took a single modern
human with the Neandertal variant to cancel it and not add it to the
Neandertal specific category.

It is not amazing that 44 mixed modern human genomes of European and
Asian descent contained most of the Neandertal genetics because each of
those modern humans have a differernt part of the Neandertal genome and
they pretty much would be expected to have a very good representation of
a Neandertal genome when taken together.

As I stated they only looked at the derived differences between modern
humans and chimps. They did not study the variation that must have
occurred in the Neandertal lineage in the half a million years that the
populations were separated. So your 88 is a minimal estimate and likely
misleading because they did not do the study in a way that would
identify the genetic differences between modern humans and Neandertals
before the hybridization events within the last 70,000 years.

Ron Okimoto

[passer...@gmail.com]

But if if's within 99.9% the same for existing Europeans and Neanderthals, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary, it wouldn't be much different than existing Europeans and Africans. The 97-98% number normally given.

And no, we will never be able to come up with a barrier that kept modern tool making humans (which includes Neanderthals), from walking around. That'll never happen because it's flat out impossible. It's a remnant of the discredited Out of Africa theory that said Neanderthal was an "inferior" different species and we were incapable of breeding with them, like we'd be icapable of breeding with a monkey.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 7 April 2014 01:02:55 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> Modern humans were restricted to Africa until around 70,000 years ago.
> I do not think that we fully understand what the barrier was between
> North Africa and Asia, but during this glacial period migration out of
> Africa was restricted.

If we reject the "angel with a flaming sword" hypothesis.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Tool making humans couldn't cross the Nile? We were on Crete etc. 100,000 years ago at least. And Africans have always lived on both sides of the Nile. it's a huge chunk of land between Africa and EuroAsia, a lot of it very desirable.

[passer...@gmail.com]

And the most desirable, in that mixing part, a Garden of Eden, was the Persian Gulf, before it was flooded 8k years ago. Didn't have to swim across that.

[Dai monie]

On Monday, 7 April 2014 05:32:55 UTC+2, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:41:46 PM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:

> (Snip, google whitespace was too much)

> > The straits of gibraltar on one end, and the river Nile on the other? Just some idea. The natural boundaries are a bit harder to traverse when you have just figured out sticks.
>
>
>
> Tool making humans couldn't cross the Nile? We were on Crete etc. 100,000 years ago at least. And Africans have always lived on both sides of the Nile. it's a huge chunk of land between Africa and EuroAsia, a lot of it very desirable.

Not entirely clear, but `Just some Idea' was a suggestion.

Also, as someone just said; migration from africa was seventy thousand years ago. I'm not sure how that got us on Crete one hundred years ago.

[alias Ernest Major]

The genus Homo was apparently present on Crete 100,000 or more years
ago. Whether we were there depends on where you draw the line of we. He
seems to be using Homo sapiens sensu latissimo.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Walter Bushell]

In article <lhsai0$46m$4...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> A 3400 line post, which is possibly a new modern record1

perhaps appropriate in a thread about ye Flood.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:18:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Now, now; I'm sure he meant "interbreeding with the parent
stock", although I'm still in the dark regarding the
relevance. Or the accuracy, as I'm sure such has happened
many times over the time of existence of mammals.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:47:15 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:18:13 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 09:33:14 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Suppose you point out one other mammal that became a different species, incapable of breeding, in a few hundred thousand years?
>>
>>
>>Well you know what happens once a species is incapable of breeding...
>
>Now, now; I'm sure he meant "interbreeding with the parent
>stock", although I'm still in the dark regarding the
>relevance. Or the accuracy, as I'm sure such has happened
>many times over the time of existence of mammals.

Posters who post as if nobody else knows anything should be held to
what they actually post.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 7 April 2014 19:47:15 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:18:13 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 09:33:14 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>Suppose you point out one other mammal that became a different species, incapable of breeding, in a few hundred thousand years?
> >
> >Well you know what happens once a species is incapable of breeding...
>
> Now, now; I'm sure he meant "interbreeding with the parent
> stock", although I'm still in the dark regarding the
> relevance. Or the accuracy, as I'm sure such has happened
> many times over the time of existence of mammals.

I think my grandmother was past childbearing age by the
time I was born, but I hope you didn't mean that either.

No - we're talking about one species becoming two or more, and
mutually infertile. Which it now seems that modern-types
and Neanderthals weren't - not totally - and yet we still
all trace our ancestry mostly to the African modern-types
rather than the Neanderthals that are also in the ancestry
of many of us - because we /do/ prefer to consider ourselves
members of a Universal Brotherhood of Mankind.

As for a mammal species dividing... well, chimpanzees have
a different number of chromosomes from us - so they do match
up but they aren't compatible. But that's over a time counted
in millions of years. On the other hand, possibly what counts
is the number of generations: so how about looking at mice?

I wonder if anyone has worked it out. But I don't need to
know desperately.

[RonO]

No buts, the way they did the study they would have minimized the
difference between the modern human population and Neandertal because
they included known hybrids in the study. What don't you get.
Europeans and Asians inherited Neandertal genetics. Using them to
determine the difference was stupid. What do you not get?

>
> And no, we will never be able to come up with a barrier that kept modern tool making humans (which includes Neanderthals), from walking around. That'll never happen because it's flat out impossible. It's a remnant of the discredited Out of Africa theory that said Neanderthal was an "inferior" different species and we were incapable of breeding with them, like we'd be icapable of breeding with a monkey.
>

Beats me what this is about. The genetic evidence is pretty clear that
there wasn't much if any gene flow between Africa and the rest of the
old world (Europe and Asia) for around half a million years. It doesn't
matter that both Homo populations were bipedal they did not interact and
there was some type of barrier keeping them separate. If you have some
other evidence put it forward.

Things were not really great for humans in Africa around the time that
modern humans migrated out of Africa. Humans went through a severe
bottle neck in their population 80 to 100 thousand years ago. We nearly
went extinct. They think the effective breeding population (those that
left descendants) got down to around 1000. It looks like Neandertals
and Denisovans felt a squeeze too. There is a lack of diversity in the
individuals that we have sequence from. The environment was likely
pretty bad around this time for humans.

The evidence for genetic bottle necks is that humans show decreased
diversity compared to most other species. Even as decimated as chimps
are they have around 3 or 4 times the genetic diversity in their
population as humans have. You get a fifty or 60 humans in a room and
their genomic sequence probably varies at around 1 in 300 base-pairs,
but if you took the same number of chimps they would vary by at least 1
base pair in a hundred.

From the sequence that we have Neandertals and Denisovans may have been
more genetically depleted than modern humans. Most species have a lot
more genetic diversity than humans. Humans aren't as bad as cheetahs,
but we are pretty far below average in terms of genetic diversity. It
looks like we almost didn't make it and came back from the brink.

Ron Okimoto

[passer...@gmail.com]

It's absurd that humans didn't live next to, intermingled with Neanderthal for hundreds of thousands of years and we have the bones and teeth to prove it. Shouldn't need the bones, since it's absurd, but we have them.

And we also have human artifacts on Crete and other islands in the Med. 100,000 years ago. AT LEAST.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Know of a mammal separated by only a few hundred thousand years that's a different species? Species being defined by being able to breed.

I defy you.

Now, how do I know I can do that?

Are humans mammmals?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 8 April 2014 12:26:16 UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Know of a mammal separated by only a few hundred thousand
> years that's a different species? Species being defined
> by being able to breed.
>
> I defy you.
>
> Now, how do I know I can do that?

Because we don't know your real name or where you live?

Except that it doesn't appear to be here,
<http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml>
"Each of the six unique populations of mice
on Madeira has its own special assembly of
fused chromosomes. Each group of mice may now
be its own species. The diversity of fused
chromosomes seems to have occurred in just
500 years, or between 1,500-2,000 generations
of mice."

> Are humans mammmals?

No, we are mammals.

[passer...@gmail.com]

That's someone's theory that hasn't been tested. "May".

[Burkhard]

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1:42:19 PM UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
><snip>

> > Except that it doesn't appear to be here,

> > <http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml>>

> > "Each of the six unique populations of mice
> > on Madeira has its own special assembly of
> > fused chromosomes. Each group of mice may now
> > be its own species. The diversity of fused
> > chromosomes seems to have occurred in just
> > 500 years, or between 1,500-2,000 generations
> > of mice."
>

> > > Are humans mammmals?

> > No, we are mammals.
>

> That's someone's theory that hasn't been tested. "May".

There is pretty good evidence for it, see e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/nbs4flm

warning: adult content

[jillery]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 04:23:22 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

If there were hominids on Crete 100K years ago, they were almost
certainly Neanderthals.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 8 April 2014 13:42:19 UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 7:43:30 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > <http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml>
> > "Each of the six unique populations of mice
> > on Madeira has its own special assembly of
> > fused chromosomes. Each group of mice may now
> > be its own species. The diversity of fused
> > chromosomes seems to have occurred in just
> > 500 years, or between 1,500-2,000 generations
> > of mice."
>

> That's someone's theory that hasn't been tested. "May".

That was in 2000 - which I hadn't noticed.

They are certainly headed towards being different
species, and with different chromosomes, you would
guess that they already wouldn't breed. But that
isn't being said - and it was going to be tried,
so, we should know.

Maybe they aren't interested in each other "that way’".
Which would be enough.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:11:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

>On Monday, 7 April 2014 19:47:15 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:18:13 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>> >On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 09:33:14 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>> >wrote:

>> >>Suppose you point out one other mammal that became a different species, incapable of breeding, in a few hundred thousand years?

>> >Well you know what happens once a species is incapable of breeding...

>> Now, now; I'm sure he meant "interbreeding with the parent
>> stock", although I'm still in the dark regarding the
>> relevance. Or the accuracy, as I'm sure such has happened
>> many times over the time of existence of mammals.

>I think my grandmother was past childbearing age by the
>time I was born, but I hope you didn't mean that either.

No; see item 2) below.

>No - we're talking about one species becoming two or more, and
>mutually infertile. Which it now seems that modern-types
>and Neanderthals weren't - not totally - and yet we still
>all trace our ancestry mostly to the African modern-types
>rather than the Neanderthals that are also in the ancestry
>of many of us - because we /do/ prefer to consider ourselves
>members of a Universal Brotherhood of Mankind.
>
>As for a mammal species dividing... well, chimpanzees have
>a different number of chromosomes from us - so they do match
>up but they aren't compatible. But that's over a time counted
>in millions of years. On the other hand, possibly what counts
>is the number of generations: so how about looking at mice?
>
>I wonder if anyone has worked it out. But I don't need to
>know desperately.

Two comments:

1) Nice followup
2 Smartass!

That said, I'm also a bit curious about that, even though
p'by seems to have lost interest.

And since the context was snipped before I read jillery's
response I don't actually know what "other mammal" implies
(although I suspect it refers to humans), or the relevance
of his question to anything.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 8 April 2014 20:15:03 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:11:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com>:

> >As for a mammal species dividing... well, chimpanzees have
> >a different number of chromosomes from us - so they do match
> >up but they aren't compatible. But that's over a time counted
> >in millions of years. On the other hand, possibly what counts
> >is the number of generations: so how about looking at mice?
> >
> >I wonder if anyone has worked it out. But I don't need to
> >know desperately.
>
> Two comments:
>
> 1) Nice followup
> 2 Smartass!
>
> That said, I'm also a bit curious about that, even though
> p'by seems to have lost interest.
>
> And since the context was snipped before I read jillery's
> response I don't actually know what "other mammal" implies
> (although I suspect it refers to humans), or the relevance
> of his question to anything.

I think the context is whether "modern" humans are a different
species from Neanderthals, but possibly also biblical YEC,
since in the bible God only created one human breeding pair
and therefore only one human species, so a separate Neanderthal
species is un-biblical.

I'm assuming that the mice on Madeira turned out to be interfertile
after all, chromosome numbers notwithstanding, since I don't think
I found a properly cited statement that they were not. But I'm
not a scholar and not able to search for that sort of thing properly.
What I did find less and more firm statements that they are
separate species or separate "races" from each other and from
mainland mice because of the chromosome thing. I assume too
that if they were now a set of different mouse species,
although physically indistinguishable or nearly so, then
that would be said, and the use of "race" implies /not/ species.
But maybe people /do/ object to "species" when they're
clearly mice - with it now appearing that they were shipped in
about 1000 years ago, and possibly by Vikings (!) since they
seem to have North European mouse genes, not Portuguese.
Still talking about the mice, you understand. This is just
what I've read in the last day or so, as I remember it.

Another problem for a firm and widely published scientific
conclusion is that it seems to be mainly one scientist studying
them. Madeira is not a vanishingly tiny place but it is mainly
known for <http://www.iankitching.me.uk/humour/hippo/madeira.html>
...which we are assured is about their famous cake.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Humans and Neandertals interbred, new method confirms

Technical objections to the idea that Neandertals interbred with the ancestors of Eurasians have been overcome, thanks to a new genome analysis method. The technique can more confidently detect the genetic signatures of interbreeding than previous approaches and will be useful for evolutionary studies of other ancient or rare DNA samples....

...Lohse cautions against reading too much into the fact that the new method estimates a slightly higher genetic contribution of Neandertals to modern humans than previous studies. Estimating this contribution is complex and is likely to vary slightly between different approaches...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140408111228.htm

Oh, if it had shown less genetic contribution from Neandertals, I suspect plenty would be read into that.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 4:40:01 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 5, 2014 1:05:47 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>
> > On 4/5/2014 12:40 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Introduction:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The most bitter dispute in the study of human origins, perhaps in modern science has between those that believe in the Universal Brotherhood of Man and those that think those that look different are not closely related not part of the Brotherhood of Man, and inferior. In some cases, claiming they are different species, even. There is no clearer example of this than Neanderthal, who until recently, they not only thought was a different species, but was too stupid to talk.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Those that support the Brotherhood of Man have been in the minority, ignored by the media, and discounted by most of pop culture and their peers. This is from the #1 Brotherhood of Man champion, Trinkaus, about the #1 racist/speciesist that represented the overwhelming majority of what passes for scientists in the rather voodoo field of anthropology....
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > A Correction to the Commentary of Tattersall and Schwartz Concerning the Interpretation of the Lagar Velho 1 Child
>
> >
>
> > > Erik Trinkaus
>
> >
>
> > > (Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis MO 63130, USA)
>
> >
>
> > > João Zilhão, (Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Av. da Índia 136, 1300 Lisboa, Portugal)
>
> >
>
> > > June 24, 1999
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ...Concluding Remarks
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > "It remains possible that our admixture hypothesis will be refuted or an alternative and equally valid explanation will be put forward. However, as the discussion above indicates, nothing in this abysmal piece of scholarship serves to refute our basic premise, that the Lagar Velho 1 child presents a mosaic of Neandertal and early modern human features.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The Commentary of Tattersall and Schwartz is an inappropriate, inaccurate, and unethical critique of our article and the hypothesis of admixture between the Neandertals and early modern humans in Iberia. Their paper is replete with mis-information, mis-use of cladistic and anatomical terminology, mis-quotes, mis- representations, poor logic, general incompetence regarding the Late Pleistocene hominid fossil record, anatomical ignorance, and a priori non-evolutionary (typological) approaches. When considered in light
>
> >
>
> > > of the question of concern, the fossil evidence available, and the evolutionary and biological framework it needs to be placed into, their attempt at refutation of the admixture hypothesis is pitiful. This is combined with their inaccurate use of unpublished observations taken from an oral presentation at a scientific meeting,a serious breach of scientific etiquette.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There are three possible, and not mutually exclusive, interpretations of the nature of their Commentary. First, they are simply ignorant of the relevant aspects of the field, both through the original fossils and recent human skeletal remains and the readily available published literature (including the substance of the paper they were commenting upon). Second, they are so committed to their a priori point of view that they subconsciously distort the empirical record to fit their views. Three, they are intellectually dishonest. Any combination of these interpretations reflects a fundamental incompetence and an attitude which have no place in scientific discourse on human evolution."
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Well, they just sequenced the Neanderthal DNA, and looks like Trinkaus was right. Neanderthal was as human as us, they are us, not only not a different species, plenty of humans are closer to Neanderthal than to each other. Dependng on who you are, closer than a so called "race". Turns out Trinkaus was right about Tattersall.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Oh yeah, and looks like the found the Garden of Eden recently too, and it's exactly like the one in Genesis...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The Sordid Details of Neanderthal's Sex Life
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Most people have heard of "Eve". That comes from DNA that's of no importance, and not in the nucleus and doesn't have anything to do with what you look like or how fast you can run. They measured that because it was easy. In May 2010, they published the the Neanderthal nuclear DNA. All that Eve stuff is now proved meaningless. the last common ancestor of existing humans isn't 150,000 years ago, it's probably over a million, long before there was a "Neanderthal" which is shorthand for a European over 30,000 years ago. Big news in December 2010 is that they found the cousin of Neanderthal in East Asia, also within the modern range, and contributing genes to those in Asia like Neanderthal did in Europe. In a nutshell, Neanderthals, their eastern cousins the Denisovans (Neanderthals that wandered into East Asia 400,000 years ago), and existing Europeans/Asians have 1% to 4% of their genes in common, and they aren't found in sub-Saharan Africans. You can create almost any late N
>
> >
>
> > eandert
>
> >
>
> > hal, with the genes of 50 ex
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > isting humans chosen at random, from around the world. That's how well we are mixed. A roomfull of us carry virtually the entire Neanderthal genetic blueprint for virtually all late Neanderthals.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > In a nutshell, the conclusion of the breakthrough May papers was that Neanderthal was virtually identical to us, but no big sign of late European interbreeding since those in SE Asia have the same percentage of Neanderthal, non-African genes. And they thought that Neanderthal, for 500,000 years, couldn't find China. But the December 2010 paper demonstrates they found it 400,000 years ago. Finally found some bones. Papers not an easy read, but pop culture articles are easy to find. All for personal use only...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The main DNA paper...
>
> >
>
> > > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full.html
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The associated protein paper...
>
> >
>
> > > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/723.abstract
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The materials and methods for the protein paper
>
> >
>
> > > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2010/05/05/328.5979.723.DC1/Burbano.SOM.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > And an article from the NY Times on the brand new (at the moment) Neanderthal cousins in Asia actual paper publicly unavailable for free.
>
> >
>
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/science/23ancestor.html
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > So, it's been one big interbreeding family, one Universal Brotherhood of Man for millions of years. No inferior species. No other species at all. Not even remotely close. But there is strong evidence that there was a big expansion, from where Europe, Asia and Africa meet, sometime in the last 100,000 years. And it interbred and left a genetic imprint from Iceland to Australia. And that big winner, during that millions of years long Brotherhood of Man, was the most mixed, the half-breed mongrels of the Garden of Eden...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The Garden of Eden
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Lost Civilization Under Persian Gulf?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2010) -- A once fertile landmass now submerged beneath the Persian Gulf may have been home to some of the earliest human populations outside Africa, according to an article published in Current Anthropology.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Jeffrey Rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the University of Birmingham in the U.K., says that the area in and around this "Persian Gulf Oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the Indian Ocean around 8,000 years ago. Rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the Near East, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > In recent years, archaeologists have turned up evidence of a wave of human settlements along the shores of the Gulf dating to about 7,500 years ago. "Where before there had been but a handful of scattered hunting camps, suddenly, over 60 new archaeological sites appear virtually overnight," Rose said. "These settlements boast well-built, permanent stone houses, long-distance trade networks, elaborately decorated pottery, domesticated animals, and even evidence for one of the oldest boats in the world."
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > But how could such highly developed settlements pop up so quickly, with no precursor populations to be found in the archaeological record? Rose believes that evidence of those preceding populations is missing because it's under the Gulf....
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > "Perhaps it is no coincidence that the founding of such remarkably well developed communities along the shoreline corresponds with the flooding of the Persian Gulf basin around 8,000 years ago," Rose said. "These new colonists may have come from the heart of the Gulf, displaced by rising water levels that plunged the once fertile landscape beneath the waters of the Indian Ocean."
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Historical sea level data show that, prior to the flood, the Gulf basin would have been above water beginning about 75,000 years ago. And it would have been an ideal refuge from the harsh deserts surrounding it, with fresh water supplied by the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun, and Wadi Baton Rivers, as well as by underground springs. When conditions were at their driest in the surrounding hinterlands, the Gulf Oasis would have been at its largest in terms of exposed land area. At its peak, the exposed basin would have been about the size of Great Britain, Rose says.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Evidence is also emerging that modern humans could have been in the region even before the oasis was above water. Recently discovered archaeological sites in Yemen and Oman have yielded a stone tool style that is distinct from the East African tradition. That raises the possibility that humans were established on the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula beginning as far back as 100,000 years ago or more, Rose says. That is far earlier than the estimates generated by several recent migration models, which place the first successful migration into Arabia between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The Gulf Oasis would have been available to these early migrants, and would have provided "a sanctuary throughout the Ice Ages when much of the region was rendered uninhabitable due to hyperaridity," Rose said. "The presence of human groups in the oasis fundamentally alters our understanding of human emergence and cultural evolution in the ancient Near East."
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > It also hints that vital pieces of the human evolutionary puzzle may be hidden in the depths of the Persian Gulf.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208151609.htm
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > East of Israel, and four rivers two of which are the Tigris and Euphrates, and springs, and a river running through it, and it being like paradise and the birth of humanity? Sure seems that sounds familiar...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Genesis 2:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ... streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 [Check on the springs] Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. [Check on the first humans like us (to a large extent). Left out bacteria and so on between dust and humans, but the general idea, didn't make 'em out of magic demons or something.]
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, [check, due east from Israel] in Eden; [that's how the scientist describes it, like Eden] and there he put the man he had formed. 9 [Exactly what the scientist just said ]The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. [Check] In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. [No doubt notions of good and evil were to a large extent from there. The birth of cities was, and we all know about the evil there. :)]
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. [Check on the four rivers, check on the Tigris and Euphrates, check on them forming the main river through Eden.]
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Conclusions:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If someone looks different from you, don't assume they are distantly related and inferior.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The more mixed the genetics, the stronger. Have kids with someone from the other side of the planet.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The human race, all of it, every one that walks on two legs, has been one big interbreeding family for over a million years, one Universal Brotherhood of Man.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Two point:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1. Evolution theory would show all human are so closely related that
>
> >
>
> > there is no reason to claim any ethnic group is superior or inferior to
>
> >
>
> > any other.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2. Some Christians have claimed that the bible proves some ethnic groups
>
> >
>
> > are inferior - even created separately by god.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Racism is not restricted to evolutionist or creationists.
>
>
>
> I agree Mark. But Darwin has always been the darling of racists, they love Darwin. Eugenicists type of racists too. Or rather their twisted version of it. How ironic, Hitler's ancestral superman he sent teams around the world to find, was there in the German museums all along. And the cartoons of what it looked like was exactly like his cartoons of the Jews.

Except for Hitler and Stalin, both of whom banned his books.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:13:35 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 5:33:14 PM UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, April 6, 2014 12:17:04 PM UTC-4, alias Ernest Major wrote:
>
> <snip>

>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Suppose you point out one other mammal that became a different species, incapable of breeding, in a few hundred thousand years?
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>

> Put a he- wolf with a girl Chihuahua in heat in a kennel, and note the results.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Can't? Can't do it?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Gee, wonder why?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You'd think on an evolution forum they'd know something about evolution.

Lunch?

[alias Ernest Major]

Not all "chromosome races" are separate biological species, but many are.

There are people studying hybrid zones between mouse chromosomal races,
both in Madeira and elsewhere.

>
> Another problem for a firm and widely published scientific
> conclusion is that it seems to be mainly one scientist studying
> them. Madeira is not a vanishingly tiny place but it is mainly
> known for <http://www.iankitching.me.uk/humour/hippo/madeira.html>
> ...which we are assured is about their famous cake.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:15:20 -0700 (PDT), the following

Mmmmm...OK. But if he thinks that Neanderthals are ancestral
to Homo sap he's already on the wrong path, so that's a
non-starter. And as for the idea of a bottleneck of a single
breeding pair in recent prehistory, or for that matter that
the Bible is to be read literally, current knowledge says
that didn't happen and it isn't.

>I'm assuming that the mice on Madeira turned out to be interfertile
>after all, chromosome numbers notwithstanding, since I don't think
>I found a properly cited statement that they were not. But I'm
>not a scholar and not able to search for that sort of thing properly.
>What I did find less and more firm statements that they are
>separate species or separate "races" from each other and from
>mainland mice because of the chromosome thing. I assume too
>that if they were now a set of different mouse species,
>although physically indistinguishable or nearly so, then
>that would be said, and the use of "race" implies /not/ species.
>But maybe people /do/ object to "species" when they're
>clearly mice - with it now appearing that they were shipped in
>about 1000 years ago, and possibly by Vikings (!) since they
>seem to have North European mouse genes, not Portuguese.
>Still talking about the mice, you understand. This is just
>what I've read in the last day or so, as I remember it.

OK, and thanks for the additional info. I'm still a bit
vague about how it lends any support to passerby's apparent
conjectures, but that seems common with such conjectures.

>Another problem for a firm and widely published scientific
>conclusion is that it seems to be mainly one scientist studying
>them. Madeira is not a vanishingly tiny place but it is mainly
>known for <http://www.iankitching.me.uk/humour/hippo/madeira.html>
>...which we are assured is about their famous cake.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 20:59:04 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:15:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com>:

> >I think the context is whether "modern" humans are a different
> >species from Neanderthals, but possibly also biblical YEC,
> >since in the bible God only created one human breeding pair
> >and therefore only one human species, so a separate Neanderthal
> >species is un-biblical.
>
> Mmmmm...OK. But if he thinks that Neanderthals are ancestral
> to Homo sap he's already on the wrong path, so that's a
> non-starter. And as for the idea of a bottleneck of a single
> breeding pair in recent prehistory, or for that matter that
> the Bible is to be read literally, current knowledge says
> that didn't happen and it isn't.

Yes on the bottleneck. Having said that, I think one of his
posts - something which he may or may not have written himself,
and therefore may or may not stand by - was complaining about
"Eve", by which he seemed to mean "Mitochondrial Eve" but didn't
say so. Unless that was someone else saying that. Anyway, M.E.
isn't a bottleneck.

Maybe he wants it both ways; no to Mitochondrial Eve, yes to
the Garden of Eden.

But, on the other hand, isn't it the latest thinking that
we modern humans - many of us anyway - are quite distinct
from Neanderthal specimens but do have genes that are also
found in some non-African Neanderthals but not in present-day
Africans? Which in that case implies that there are a
couple of Neanderthals in your family tree - for how else?

[Paul J Gans]

Everybody has Neanderthals in their family tree. Why I
could tell you stories about my cousin...

Never mind.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Walter Bushell]

In article <li4vjq$2s7$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Everybody has Neanderthals in their family tree. Why I
> could tell you stories about my cousin...
>
> Never mind.

You have a cousin in the Tea Party?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:31:16 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

>On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 20:59:04 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:15:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>> >I think the context is whether "modern" humans are a different
>> >species from Neanderthals, but possibly also biblical YEC,
>> >since in the bible God only created one human breeding pair
>> >and therefore only one human species, so a separate Neanderthal
>> >species is un-biblical.
>>
>> Mmmmm...OK. But if he thinks that Neanderthals are ancestral
>> to Homo sap he's already on the wrong path, so that's a
>> non-starter. And as for the idea of a bottleneck of a single
>> breeding pair in recent prehistory, or for that matter that
>> the Bible is to be read literally, current knowledge says
>> that didn't happen and it isn't.
>
>Yes on the bottleneck. Having said that, I think one of his
>posts - something which he may or may not have written himself,
>and therefore may or may not stand by - was complaining about
>"Eve", by which he seemed to mean "Mitochondrial Eve" but didn't
>say so. Unless that was someone else saying that. Anyway, M.E.
>isn't a bottleneck.

Nope, the only bottleneck I know of was later than the
estimates for mEve; 70ky vs. 100-200ky according to the
sources I read. They are unrelated.

>Maybe he wants it both ways; no to Mitochondrial Eve, yes to
>the Garden of Eden.

That would be typical.

>But, on the other hand, isn't it the latest thinking that
>we modern humans - many of us anyway - are quite distinct
>from Neanderthal specimens but do have genes that are also
>found in some non-African Neanderthals but not in present-day
>Africans? Which in that case implies that there are a
>couple of Neanderthals in your family tree - for how else?

I don't think the presence of indicators of crossbreeding
between Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens
neanderthalensis (if that's still how they're classified)
implies ancestry, other than a recent common ancestor for
both. Neanderthals in the family tree, yes; Neanderthals as
ancestors to modern humans, no.

[John Harshman]

On 4/10/14 12:15 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

> I don't think the presence of indicators of crossbreeding
> between Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens
> neanderthalensis (if that's still how they're classified)
> implies ancestry, other than a recent common ancestor for
> both. Neanderthals in the family tree, yes; Neanderthals as
> ancestors to modern humans, no.
>

Well, neandertals as some of the ancestors to some modern humans, certainly.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <li4vjq$2s7$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> Everybody has Neanderthals in their family tree. Why I
>> could tell you stories about my cousin...
>>
>> Never mind.

>You have a cousin in the Tea Party?

A nephew, actually... :-(

[D. Spencer Hines]

ONE non-comatose Gansian Family Member...

Slim Pickings...

All the others are torpid, by Pogue Gans's own admission, infra.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus.

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message news:li6s40$t94$1...@reader1.panix.com...