Your not 1% Neanderthal

You, re. I'm not, but YOU ARE!

reply to post by punkinworks10


he is not saying that these geans do not exist, he is saying they do exist but their origin has been misinterpreted!

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by LUXUS

 

On another note my husband and youngest son are extremely hairy. I call them Neanderthal.Or say they are wearing brown sweaters under their clothes. The kids chest isn't hairy yet but his back is pretty fuzzy. Hubby only has hair free skin on his palms and the bottom of his feet. LOL. Good thing I like hairy men.

don't let them go shirtless at a beach, dog catcher might net them and put them in a cage.

My own personal opinion on this is that I think that sometime in the more recent past, our species did in fact interact, and that we were close enough to mate. I look at horses and donkeys mating, and can believe that our 2 species did indeed mate, perhaps in only a few occasions. I think like one person said, it was most likely male Neanderthals taking the more modern women, and mating with them. Perhaps occasionally, it would have worked the other way around, but it seems rather unlikely to have happened a lot.

It would only make sense to me that they would have intermingled at some point in our evolution into what we are today. That they could have or would have been able to stay completely apart, just doesn't make sense. Even accidental meetings were bound to happen, as they both shared the same habitat. What made the Neanderthal die out at some point has always been a puzzle to me- after all, they seem to have been around much longer than we currently have. There could be many reasons they died out.

As for me, I will wait and see what science has to offer in the next 10 years or so....we have made a lot of progress, but still have a long ways to go, towards understanding how we got to be here.

Have a great day all!
SK

unknown known
reply to post by Phage

 

It's the LATEST study, hence, more accurate.

"Latest" =/ "greatest"

LUXUS
Scientists are now saying that earlier suggestions that neanderthals bread with us is incorrect, apparently we don't have the 1% neanderthal previously stated.

That's not what they said. They said,

Though we do not claim that anatomically modern humans never admixed with other hominins, our results imply that current evidence for such admixture events is inconclusive at best.

www.pnas.org...

Though I guess "Scientists imply that evidence is inconclusive" wouldn't make for a very good headline.

FurvusRexCaeli

LUXUS
Scientists are now saying that earlier suggestions that neanderthals bread with us is incorrect, apparently we don't have the 1% neanderthal previously stated.

That's not what they said. They said,

Though we do not claim that anatomically modern humans never admixed with other hominins, our results imply that current evidence for such admixture events is inconclusive at best.

www.pnas.org...

Though I guess "Scientists imply that evidence is inconclusive" wouldn't make for a very good headline.

Or it could read:

Though we do not claim that in terms of anatomy modern humans never admixed with other hominins, our results imply that current evidence for such admixture events is inconclusive at best.

OR:

Though we do not claim that anatomically modern humans did admix with other hominins, our results are inconclusive and we just don't know.

Emphasis and choice of words is significant in meaning.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

They are not saying their results are inconclusive. They're saying the evidence for admixture is inconclusive. Syntax matters, too.

FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

 

They are not saying their results are inconclusive. They're saying the evidence for admixture is inconclusive. Syntax matters, too.

Haha -yes. But their results would be taken as evidence, so indirectly, evidence and results are synonymous.

Phage
reply to post by LUXUS

 

But the latest DNA studies shows that there is no neanderthal DNA present in modern humans!

To clarify:
It's study. One. Singular.
One study is not going to decide the matter.

I have to agree with the esteemed one. A paper, report, study if you will, one singular, whether it is the latest or not, does not decide anything. Especially since we know that DNA testing is not infallible. For me it is like the horse and the mule. Everything appears to be the same and they try but it rarely, incredibly rarely ever takes. They just are not genetically compatible.

Now given continual trying over and over through a thousand years, that is how long it would take, you might get a really viable cross that is fertile and could breed. It has happened in nature but it was in very isolated situations, and over hundreds of years.

I personally don't believe we have neanderthal in us. It is common sense, look how long things take in nature then look at us and our miraculous meteoric rise to the top. Frankly it is literally hard to rationalize anything other than some sort of higher design. For many this is god, others it is ET, I believe God but Phage did get that smart without some sort of magic going on from somewhere lol. Seriously think about it. For most it is matter of choice and faith, I choose to believe it was all god.

The Bot

reply to post by DazDaKing


Relax. Have you red the forum lately. 98% of this forum is that same kind of nonsense(or not). Even science is kind of a religion. People blindly believe everything what knownothing scientists report out from the labs. Medical science is playing with toxins that we can see the effects in decades from now. We haven't evolved anywhere from times of brain lobotomies and heroins for children for sleep. We are still waging wars just like 10 000 years ago. In the knowledge of the universe today, we should be united people in the world as a race without limits of countries and probably without currecy and be ready for what the universe has to offer for us and not as individual dumb countries with ideologies, governments and what not bumb problems that don't matter #. Many technologies invented is automatically harnessed in to war usage before peace and productivity. The fact that you have your physical eyes open, they tell you nothing. All you see is a very small piece of the world and people and the media you see is only the media the leaders of this world wants you to see. You are a pittiful puppet filled with lies. I know that i am a puppet but i laugh my ass of in this theatre that is going nowhere. Monetary system in this world is supressing technology and innovation and spiritual growth of everyone in this planet. Even mine. Our food is tied in to currency and our right to exist is tied in to productivity. Productivity of what? Money. We're just slaves and our mind is just imprisoned here in these bodies. Physically i don't matter. Physically you don't matter. This is all just big bull #. Just relax and open your mind and question everything.

reply to post by LUXUS


If I have read this study correctly, it seems that it is deeply flawed. Homo Sapiens split off from Neanderthals via Homo heidelbergensis some 650 000 years ago, not 300 000 like this study states. The fact that most of the African groups do not possess Neanderthal genes but Europeans and Asians do indicates that homo sapiens acquired the genes outside Africa. I think this study will get ripped to shreds. Good find though!

FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

 

They are not saying their results are inconclusive. They're saying the evidence for admixture is inconclusive. Syntax matters, too.

He is saying if there was any mixing in the past between neanderthal and modern man it has not survived into our current time, therefore neanderthals geans are not present in us. Secondly he is saying those geans that have been detected and labeled as neanderthal have be incorrectly interpreted meaning again we don't have neanderthal geans surviving in modern humans.

Dr Andrea Manica of the University of Cambridge said that although his work does not totally discount the idea of some limited hybridisation, there is no doubt that if such interbreeding took place it left little if any mark on the genetic make-up of modern humans.

Phage
reply to post by LUXUS

 

But the latest DNA studies shows that there is no neanderthal DNA present in modern humans!

To clarify:
It's study. One. Singular.
One study is not going to decide the matter.

Here on ATS we may be 'forced' to agree with the OP. Pics ... or it didn't happen.

SamULiquid
reply to post by LUXUS

 

Hi ya all! I'm Sam. I just couldn't resist to join and reply. Funny coinsidence!

quote

"The theory of evolution assumes that the motivational source of energy that animates every life form does not exist. It assumes that an inanimate object or a chemical concoction can suddenly become “alive” or animate accidentally or spontaneously. Or, perhaps an electrical discharge into a pool of chemical ooze will magically spawn a self-animated entity.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this is true, simply because it is not true. Dr. Frankenstein did not really resurrect the dead into a marauding monster, except in the imagination of the IS-BE who wrote a fictitious story one dark and stormy night.

The theory of evolution doesn't state this at all. The theory of evolution describes the process that animals adapt and change over time from one species to another through natural selection. No where does it describe how life can arise from no life. You are thinking of the theory of Abiogenesis.

No Western scientist ever stopped to consider who, what, where, when or how this animation happens. Complete ignorance, denial or unawareness of the spirit as the source of life force required to animate inanimate objects or cellular tissue is the sole cause of failures in Western medicine.

Yes they have, I just told you, it is called Abiogenesis.

In addition, evolution does not occur accidentally. It requires a great deal of technology which must be manipulated under the careful supervision of IS-BEs. Very simple examples are seen in the modification of farm animals or in the breeding of dogs. However, the notion that human biological organisms evolved naturally from earlier ape-like forms is incorrect. No physical evidence will ever be uncovered to substantiate the notion that modern humanoid bodies evolved on this planet.

You must be referring to the experiments done in labs to simulate evolution. If you were to actually read about the study you'd see that all the technology used was to provide the same conditions that occur naturally.

There is plenty of physical evidence to substantiate the notion that we evolved from apes. Here look. The entire time line of our ancestry all the way back to single cells.

The reason is simple: the idea that human bodies evolved spontaneously from the primordial ooze of chemical interactivity in the dim mists of time is nothing more than a hypnotic lie instilled by the amnesia operation to prevent your recollection of the true origins of Mankind. Factually, humanoid bodies have existed in various forms throughout the universe for trillions of years.”

/quote

Good thing that none of that is even remotely true. Humans didn't evolve spontaneously from the primordial ooze. They slowly developed over a long period of time from single cell organisms into what we see today.

– Excerpt from the Top Secret transcripts published in the book ALIEN INTERVIEW, edited by Lawrence R. Spencer
www.thenewearth.org...


When time and science goes on, these perls keep popping to the surface. More foil to my hat!

Your source uses strawmans to try to debunk evolution, I wouldn't really call this a "perl", but more a piece of garbage.

Here's the absolute latest on the subject.

Abstract
An analysis of the variability of the nucleotide sequences in the mitochondrial genome of modern humans, neanderthals, Denisovans, and other primates has shown that there are shared polymorphisms at positions 2758 and 7146 between modern Homo sapiens (in phylogenetic cluster L2′3′4′5′6) and Homo neanderthalensis (in the group of European neanderthals younger than 48 000 years). It is suggested that the convergence may be due to adaptive changes in the mitochondrial genomes of modern humans and neanderthals or interspecific hybridization associated with mtDNA recombination

anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...




And the link to the original


link.springer.com...

reply to post by unknown known


That's not how this works. As phage said, single paper, only.

grumpy64
If I have read this study correctly, it seems that it is deeply flawed. Homo Sapiens split off from Neanderthals via Homo heidelbergensis some 650 000 years ago, not 300 000 like this study states. The fact that most of the African groups do not possess Neanderthal genes but Europeans and Asians do indicates that homo sapiens acquired the genes outside Africa. I think this study will get ripped to shreds. Good find though!

*Mashes the keys with his hairy knuckles to reply...

That's the real question isn't it?

How exactly did their DNA get into our gene pool? Also, the Denisovians and whoever elses they have yet to distinguish.

It doesn't matter much to me, I like sharing genome with other species. I have got called a hairy ape before, a crony, and sometimes told I was acting like a cave man. I liked the Flintstones when I was young.

I can now blame this on being either part cromagnum or neanderthal. At the time I was called these things, I was actually having a lot of fun. I could imagine how much fun neanderthals had. Bring on the beast and lets party hardy.

Wait.... isn't this from early 2012?