New DNA Analysis Shows Ancient Humans Interbred with Denisovans

This is a three page article but well worth the read. We can no longer believe in evolution as Darwin explains it. We evolved as when we got cold we made clothes and when we stepped on stuff that hurt our feet we made shoes... That is how we evolved. It's proved now.

Proof of a new hominid creature.

When I first read your title I thought it said "New DNA Analysis Shows Ancient Humans Interbred with Dinosaurs" and thought it was going to be a interesting article indeed

Not to worry i am not disappointed with what the article is actually about, I find our evolutionary past very interesting. Interbreeding was part of natural selection and taking the most advantageous traits and ensuring their legacy.

We can learn so much about ourselves from our ancient past. I personally may have a bit more neandertal in my genes then most i think

Interesting read! S+F

Originally posted by Stari
We can no longer believe in evolution as Darwin explains it. We evolved as when we got cold we made clothes and when we stepped on stuff that hurt our feet we made shoes... That is how we evolved. It's proved now.

I read the article but it does not debunk evolution, nor does it mention how they evolved, I read the article and it mentions nothing of the sort...

It actually tries to tell us how the ancient hominid fits into the current evolutionary model...

The analysis suggests that the modern human line diverged from what would become the Denisovan line as long as 700,000 years ago—but possibly as recently as 170,000 years ago.

The new research reveals that the Denisovans had low genetic diversity—just 26 to 33 percent of the genetic diversity of contemporary European or Asian populations.

Curiously, the researchers noted in their paper, the Denisovan population shows "a drastic decline in size at the time when the modern human population began to expand."

Yet the new genetic analysis does support the hypothesis that Neandertals and Denisovans were more closely related to one another than either was to modern humans. The analysis suggests that the modern human line diverged from what would become the Denisovan line as long as 700,000 years ago—but possibly as recently as 170,000 years ago.

You should point out (quote) the part of the article that debunks evolution or that says it happened quickly because I don't see that in the article.

reply to post by Stari

This is a three page article but well worth the read.

Thank you for posting it. The news has already appeared on ATS here and here, but your OP contains the most informative and scientifically trustworthy link posted so far. However...

We can no longer believe in evolution as Darwin explains it.

...there is not one word in this article, or in the other links, that supports this claim of yours. Could you explain, please, how you have drawn this conclusion from the data presented?

We evolved as when we got cold we made clothes and when we stepped on stuff that hurt our feet we made shoes... That is how we evolved.

That is how some of us evolved tailoring and shoemaking skills, certainly. But it is not how we evolved opposable thumbs, lactose tolerance or language. You seem to be getting biological and cultural evolution mixed up.

It's proved now.

Please explain further. I'm intrigued.

reply to post by Elton


I dont think he is trying to debunk evolution, just our current understanding of its mechanics perhaps?

Interesting none the less, the human species in all its forms are quite remarkable.

reply to post by Elton


I understand that diehard Darwinians will poke holes in this story. But it is another clue to our ancient past that strongly suggests that we interbred, which could possibly have lead to who we are today. So I would think that a true scientist, with an open mind that is, would be able to see that it is a possibility that Darwin had it wrong, it is also a possibility that he had it right. This is why humans never stop digging

"It was the first time a new group of distinct humans was discovered" via genetic analysis rather than by anatomical description, said Svante Pääbo, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute (M.P.I.) for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, in a conference call with reporters.

Denisovans appear to have been more closely related to Neandertals than to humans, but the evidence also suggests that Denisovans and humans interbred. The new analysis also suggests new ways that early humans may have spread across the globe. The findings were published online August 30 in Science.

Denisovans also interbred with ancient modern humans, according to Pääbo and his team. Even though the sole fossil specimen was found in the mountains of Siberia, contemporary humans from Melanesia (a region in the South Pacific) seem to be the most likely to harbor Denisovan DNA.

So what I read there interbreeding is possible.

Originally posted by Stari
reply to post by Elton

 

I understand that diehard Darwinians will poke holes in this story. But it is another clue to our ancient past that strongly suggests that we interbred, which could possibly have lead to who we are today. So I would think that a true scientist, with an open mind that is, would be able to see that it is a possibility that Darwin had it wrong, it is also a possibility that he had it right. This is why humans never stop digging

[snip]

So what I read there interbreeding is possible.

It is known that primitive hominids interbred, it's part of the theory of evolution.

Here is a quote to back up my assertion:
(it's regarding Neandertals) link

Genetic evidence published in 2010 suggests they contributed DNA to anatomically modern humans, probably through interbreeding between Neanderthals and the earliest Humans that dispersed out of Africa. This is thought to have occurred between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago, shortly after (or perhaps before) the proto-Eurasians emigrated from Africa,

Again, great article, but it does not assert what OP says it asserts...

reply to post by Stari


So would my overly presumptious take on the title of this remain possible, that humans could interbreed with dinosaurs

But in all seriousness, you may be right that the Darwinists may have trouble with this theory, but like you said...Humans curiosity is insatiable.

reply to post by Elton


Thank you Elton for posting the link to that article. I have not seen it and love reading up on all of this stuff. And you are right, I should not have posted that it proves undoubtedly that we interbred. But looks like more and more evidence according to you is piling up to prove that it is true.

reply to post by Elton


The only thing i can comment on the original OP in relation to what you are getting at is we dont have to throw Darwinism out the window. Darwinism should work in conjunction with this theory to fullfil the role of any science......Using all available information to draw conclusions based on facts.

Darwins theory, though some would disagree, is fact, it would be hard to find any evidence to completly throw Darwinism out.

reply to post by MDDoxs


Yes it is MDDoxs. I am sure that in a few more years we will find more proof that points to the Darwin theory. It might be a back and forth thing with this subject.

This is an absolutely fascinating read.

Any chance of some crazy scientist out there cloning one of these guys? I wonder what the ethical implications would be of this sort of thing, cloning a 'non-human' and proving sentience (without a doubt) in life other than that with human DNA (which I've always been on the fence about myself). Could be a major moral cluster bomb.

Thoughts as to the worlds reactions / implications if someone were crazy enough to make that happen?

This to think about, too --- It's illegal to clone humans, but this would not technically be a human. So is it legal?

reply to post by powerdrone


To answer your question first, i believe it would be out of the question to clone this being. However the idea of a cloning a living evolutionary example of every stage of evolution would be incredible interesting and informative, but incredible unethical and kind of scary to boot.

I would name the neandertal "Ned" or "Hugo"

reply to post by powerdrone


That thought went through my head as well when I was reading the article. I figured though that cloning is so regulated if a geneticist were to try it then she/he would have to do it very quietly. But as I read on they only found a small bone and a few teeth, so I began to wonder would that even be enough to clone another being?

Originally posted by Stari
I understand that diehard Darwinians will poke holes in this story. But it is another clue to our ancient past that strongly suggests that we interbred, which could possibly have lead to who we are today.

Im pretty sure you will find most Darwinians are open to the idea of interbreeding. It does not diminish the theory. Interbreeding can occur along side of evolution.

Originally posted by Stari
So I would think that a true scientist, with an open mind that is, would be able to see that it is a possibility that Darwin had it wrong, it is also a possibility that he had it right. This is why humans never stop digging

As the poster you are replying to mentioned, this article does not once attempt to debunk evolution. Its simply something that happened simultaneously. I actually have read many articles in the past about how homo sapiens have interbred with neanderthals and the like. Not hard to imagine.

Im curious what your agenda is here and why you dislike evolution.

Originally posted by nightbringr
Im curious what your agenda is here and why you dislike evolution.

I am unsure what you are applying here? I have no agenda except for the truth.

And why would you think that I dislike evolution? I don't remember ever saying that I dislike anything.

reply to post by Stari

You implied that the information you posted somehow disproves Darwinian evolution.

Either explain what you meant, or withdraw the statement. How does interbreeding among human species disprove Darwin?

reply to post by Astyanax


I will not withdraw my statement. I was under the understanding that Darwin said that small genetic changes is how we modern humans came to be. At least it has been argued many times. This article simply shows that interbreeding is a more possible way for the genetic changes to have been made. And this I stand firm on.

reply to post by Stari

Yet you refuse to explain why you think so. What is it about the article that makes you question evolution?

Are you aware that natural selection and selective breeding are effectively the same thing?

reply to post by Astyanax


Their are several different species of Monkey, dogs, cats.. etc... And now humans. I believe that throughout history we will eventually find out that there where more then just a few different species of humans and they all interbred and this is where most modern humans come from.

When I hear natural selection I think of the weather warmed up like after the last ice age and Neandratals could not adapt and so they died out. And then when I hear selective breeding I think of the female picking the strongest of the males around her to breed with.

Does this answer your questions?