New study reveals traces of unknown human ancestor

Originally posted by stirling
I think it means the percentage of genes that relate to the ancestors in question.....
I think that it isnt too shocking when you look at the reports of hiant humans in the past.....
There are still reports of Bigfoots (hominids )today....
Thee are lots of evidences fior past peoples and civilisations as well as million year old man tracks with dinosaur tracks.....

Our oldest son told me just the other day that one of his co-workers gave him a rough time all day for saying he had no doubt about Bigfoot. Hoosier National Forest is HUGE and if you grew up as part of a culture that made seclusion and evasion integral from the time you could walk, it really isn't that big a stretch!

I love hearing of stuff like this. What you are taught in school is humorous once you are grown and start your real education. There is no doubt in my mind that, at this moment, there are pockets of previously unknown "relatives" of ours that don't want to be anything but left alone.

Science gets to me sometimes.

Here we have three samples, three, not three thousand, not three hundred, not even thirty, just three samples and this scientists starts making sweeping claims about the origins of the species!

This is not science. I could just as easily hypothesis that these three were outcasts from their tribe because they were sexual deviants making out with Neanderthals.

It is just not possible to make these sweeping claims based on the tiny amount of data from a miniscule data set that we have!

What is of note is that it would appear that we may have been sexually compatible with other species of Humans and as far as I am aware (I could be wrong here) we are not even reproductively compatible with apes. Now that would be interesting but there is nowhere near enough data to support that as anything more than conjecture.

Even with humans at this point in time we have only assayed the genome of a tiny weenie percentage of our own race. I will pull a figure out of my bum and say 1 in 100,000 people have been assayed. Still science wants to make sweeping statements.

We could have a trail of Jesus, Klingon or the Blob DNA running through a small part of our race and we simply have not acquired the sample size as yet to detect it. Even if something was detected science is just as likely to say "Oh, crap, I must have stuffed up that test.' because the results are not compatible with expectations.

They have no idea.

Yes, I love science but the scientific Ego is huge and always has been.

P

I'll be that guy.

It is aliens. And I am being serious.

reply to post by punkinworks10


Very interesting find... The human family tree is starting to look more like a bush with lots of offshoots. As someone else posted, the areas where these ancestors lived are probably miles out at sea as the ancient shorelines with the Ice Ages were not our current shorelines.

Hey Punkinwords

Do you think perhaps that we are missing a trick here? Just a thought, but if we take the biological definition of a species as "A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding". Not including distinct species who hybridise and produce non viable (sterile) offspring. Then we are left with a puzzling situation which seems to be somewhat ignored by mainstream science.....

What I am getting at is that there is a picture of neanderthal migration leading to interaction and interbreeding with other homonid 'species' leading to modern humans. However if Neanderthal were truly a distinct species then offspring from such breeding would be expected to be non productive or producing sterile offspring. So we are left with an interesting situation, logically it would seem that all homonids not only have a common ancestor but that the isolation that these 'species' experienced was time enough to evolve different physical characteristics but not time enough to diverge to the point they were no longer compatible genetically.

Thoughts??

reply to post by punkinworks10
Don't you think some of these republicans are in some way throw backs to that evolutionary material ??


I mean - after all the crap that comes out of their mouths doesn't link them to ice age throw backs mean anything to you.

Joe

reply to post by Charlyboy


I believe that the hominid species' were in contact with one another for an extremely long time. Long enough to be able to procreate and further evolve to produce viable offspring.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Very interesting info.

It's strange that they say modern humans are only 40 thousand years old. If we have been blended with other races that were much older, I will refer to myself as being related to the oldest one just as much as the modern man one. Think about it, at one point one of your ancestors was pure neanderthal if you possess the neanderthal gene. That means your great great great, etc.... grandpa or grandma was a neanderthal. So I consider my ancestors to go back as far as Neanderthals do in time. If they were this Devonian, and it was a million years, than my bloodline is over a million years old. I think that my ancestors have been on this world for a long time if I consider what they are saying is true.

Technically all of our ancestors have been around since the first cell formed.

Originally posted by JoeP2247
reply to post by punkinworks10
Don't you think some of these republicans are in some way throw backs to that evolutionary material ??


I mean - after all the crap that comes out of their mouths doesn't link them to ice age throw backs mean anything to you.

Joe

Please tell me why it seems that it's Progressives flinging their own poop verbally about Republicans more than the other way around? It seems for about every 10 comments I see like this, it's 6.5 progressive vs 3.5 Conservative. Do you have to insult your opponents, even on a thread where politics has NOTHING to do with the thread? Does it make you feel more sure of your point you are trying to make??? Just trying to find out your thought process here........

Originally posted by OneManArmy

Originally posted by rickymouse
Very interesting info.

It's strange that they say modern humans are only 40 thousand years old. If we have been blended with other races that were much older, I will refer to myself as being related to the oldest one just as much as the modern man one. Think about it, at one point one of your ancestors was pure neanderthal if you possess the neanderthal gene. That means your great great great, etc.... grandpa or grandma was a neanderthal. So I consider my ancestors to go back as far as Neanderthals do in time. If they were this Devonian, and it was a million years, than my bloodline is over a million years old. I think that my ancestors have been on this world for a long time if I consider what they are saying is true.

Technically all of our ancestors have been around since the first cell formed.

edit on 20-5-2013 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

But we weren't humanoids back then.

There should be many more unknown human ancestors.

I say this because we evolved from a rat like creature apparantly and then it jumps all the way to higher primates.

Whats in between? These people speaking this language , and many other humanoids.

good post


I just realized something similar was posted above me.

To many people don't seem to understand that amount of evidence is huge, even if they find only three remains.

We can now identify genetic differences, that means you can look what there is, and and see when stuf gets missing.

Hominid species from that time were of the same species, like we are.
The interbreeding between all that could, resulted in us.

This post and those that follow. Will explain all.

Go learn and have fun

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Yes,
There is an anthropologist who postulated that everybody since homo erectus
is part of a "macro species" full of sub species.

reply to post by punkinworks10


If that shouldn't make you feel united and etc... Then nothing does.