Neanderthal thread

[Huntster]

52 minutes ago, norseman said:

I think too much emphasis is placed on skin color. There are three races in science based on skull morphology.

 

1- Negroid

2- Cacausoid 

3- Mongoloid

 

And while there are absolutely subtle differences between the three races? They pale in comparison to the difference between them and a Neanderthal. 

 

And a Neanderthal pales in comparison to a Chimp.

 

 

I completely agree that a chimp is a different critter altogether, yet the dna similarity is described as either 98% or 99% alike. 

 

So what is the similar percentage of Neanderthal to Homo sapien? 99.75? 99.95? 99.99995? 

 

Closer?

 

If we bred with them, what exact criteria makes them another species?

[hiflier]

 

32 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I completely agree that a chimp is a different critter altogether, yet the dna similarity is described as either 98% or 99% alike. 

 

So what is the similar percentage of Neanderthal to Homo sapien? 99.75? 99.95? 99.99995? 

 

Closer?

 

If we bred with them, what exact criteria makes them another species?

 

The genetic timeline indicates fewer and fewer differences in base pairs (added, duplicated, or deleted) the closer ancient Homos get to modern Sapiens. And then there's brain size. That's what leaves Chimps and other Great Apes pretty much out of the picture. But hey, I've already been all over this like a summer suit for more than a few months, to the point where some were actually calling me out for repetition. It is a fact that HOMINIDS, no matter the distance between them time-wise all became close enough genetically to be considered in the same family. Pick apart whatever anyone wishes to pick apart, the ultimate criteria lay in the genetics of brain size and cognitive ability.  

 

I could go into the specifics that support the point, like the NOTCH2NLA , B and C, but I don' think anyone really wants to hear it all again.   

Edited April 13, 2020 by hiflier

[norseman]

30 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I completely agree that a chimp is a different critter altogether, yet the dna similarity is described as either 98% or 99% alike. 

 

So what is the similar percentage of Neanderthal to Homo sapien? 99.75? 99.95? 99.99995? 

 

Closer?

 

If we bred with them, what exact criteria makes them another species?

No Y chromosome of the Neanderthal species remains.....and yet we interbred with them. Why?

 

Its the same reason you cannot breed Ligers or Mules. They are a sterile hybrid. A tiger and a lion are not the same species. But can breed and produce sterile offspring. Same goes for the coupling of a horse and a donkey. Except in very rare cases.

 

https://www.habitatforhorses.org/time-for-a-double-take-a-mules-foal/

 

It would seem that Sapien-Neanderthal female hybrids could have offspring (or at least some of them), but male hybrids were sterile. Which means that we were not the same species of human. What number of percentage is that gap? Of that I’m not sure.

[Huntster]

14 minutes ago, hiflier said:

The genetic timeline indicates fewer and fewer differences in base pairs (added, duplicated, or deleted) the closer ancient Homos get to modern Sapiens........

 

Interbreeding, and the slow extinction of the differences.

..........And then there's brain size. That's what leaves Chimps and other Great Apes pretty much out of the picture.......

 

Neanderthal had bigger brains than us, even though their tools and societies were less complex. And my brans are bigger than a pygmy's brain.

 

.........But hey, I've already been all over this like a summer suit for more than a few months, to the point where some were actually calling me out for repetition. It is a fact that

HOMINIDS, no matter the distance between them time-wise all became close enough genetically to be considered in the same family........

 

Same family, yes, of course. I'm talking species here.

 

........Pick apart whatever anyone wishes to pick apart, 

the ultimate criteria lay in the genetics of brain size and cognitive ability.......

 

That still doesn't mesh. Example: Explain how Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis are different species, please.

 

 

[norseman]

Boiled down to brass tacks. From the Mule foal article.

 

Mules are a hybrid of two species – a female horse and a male donkey – so they end up with an odd number of chromosomes. A horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62. A mule inherits 63. An even number of chromosomes is needed to divide into pairs and reproduce.

[norseman]

Good article.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2083381-missing-y-chromosome-kept-us-apart-from-neanderthals/

It seems 99.5% is the answer.

 

https://www.livescience.com/1122-neanderthal-99-5-percent-human.html

[Huntster]

3 minutes ago, norseman said:

No Y chromosome of the Neanderthal species remains.....and yet we interbred with them. Why?

 

Its the same reason you cannot breed Ligers or Mules. They are a sterile hybrid. A tiger and a lion are not the same species. But can breed and produce sterile offspring. Same goes for the coupling of a horse and a donkey. Except in very rare cases.

 

https://www.habitatforhorses.org/time-for-a-double-take-a-mules-foal/

 

It would seem that Sapien-Neanderthal female hybrids could have offspring (or at least some of them), but male hybrids were sterile. Which means that we were not the same species of human. What number of percentage is that gap? Of that I’m not sure.

 

Now THAT makes sense to me. Thank you. It is a good theory, and it explains everything.........except........

 

Zana's children ALL had descendants themselves, both the males and females........

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/zana.htm

 

........The eldest son's name was Dzhanda, and the eldest daughier was Kodzhanar. The second daughter was named Gamasa, and the younger son Khwit, who died in 1954. All had descendants of their own, scattered across Abkhazia..........

[norseman]

42 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Now THAT makes sense to me. Thank you. It is a good theory, and it explains everything.........except........

 

Zana's children ALL had descendants themselves, both the males and females........

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/zana.htm

 

 

 

 

Is someone claiming she was a Neanderthal?

[Huntster]

18 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Is someone claiming she was a Neanderthal?

 

Some opined that she was. Her description was, essentially, that of a female sasquatch. They called her an almas. 

 

The key here was that:

 

1) She successfully bred with homo sapien men,

2) Her progeny, both male and female, all had children of their own, so none were sterile, and

3) We have dna examinations of her progeny (grandchildren) by one of the world's most prominent geneticists who says that she was 100% "human" (which really doesn't tell us anything, because Neanderthals, Denisovans, Flores Man, etc. were all "human"), and that she was 100% sub-Saharan African, but of a lineage that he had never seen before, thus a mystery marker.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

Explain how Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis are different species, please

 

You answered it yourself: Science by consensus. But since the discussion has meandered back to chromosomes and genetics, Home = 23 chromosome pairs, but there's more. out of 16,500 base pairs Denisovans differ by 385 base pairs and Neanderthal by 202.

 

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

That still doesn't mesh. Example: Explain how Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis are different species, please.

 

 

Ask any scientist, the jury is out on finding any floresiensis DNA so no one knows who their ancestors were on Homo family tree. Especially with their smaller brains though they had tool use. Also one is even sure whether or not either is outside the criteria for being Human. Which means no one knows if they are in fact a different species. As we know Denisovan DNA is found in population in SE Asia, but no one knows if Denisovan DNA is in floresiensis or luzonensis since DNA has not been found for either. Bottom line is, I cannot explain whether or not floresiensis or luzonensis are different species. But then no one else can either. You could explain it yourself if the data was available, but it just isn't.

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

No Y chromosome of the Neanderthal species remains.....and yet we interbred with them. Why?

 

Homo species intermingled for millions of years. Nothing new under the sun there. For all I know there may have been no Y chromosomes passed on in other intermingling events also.

Edited April 13, 2020 by hiflier

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Some opined that she was. Her description was, essentially, that of a female sasquatch. They called her an almas. 

 

The key here was that:

 

1) She successfully bred with homo sapien men,

2) Her progeny, both male and female, all had children of their own, so none were sterile, and

3) We have dna examinations of her progeny (grandchildren) by one of the world's most prominent geneticists who says that she was 100% "human" (which really doesn't tell us anything, because Neanderthals, Denisovans, Flores Man, etc. were all "human"), and that she was 100% sub-Saharan African, but of a lineage that he had never seen before, thus a mystery marker.

 

That would make her a Homo Sapien Negroid?

 

Also I think in this case Sykes is speaking as human means Homo Sapien. Not the genus Homo.

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

You answered it yourself: Science by consensus. But since the discussion has meandered back to chromosomes and genetics, Home = 23 chromosome pairs, but there's more. out of 16,500 base pairs Denisovans differ by 385 base pairs and Neanderthal by 202.

 

 

Ask any scientist, the jury is out on finding any floresiensis DNA so no one knows who their ancestors were on Homo family tree. Especially with their smaller brains though they had tool use. Also one is even sure whether or not either is outside the criteria for being Human. Which means no one knows if they are in fact a different species. As we know Denisovan DNA is found in population in SE Asia, but no one knows if Denisovan DNA is in floresiensis or luzonensis since DNA has not been found for either. Bottom line is, I cannot explain whether or not floresiensis or luzonensis are different species. But then no one else can either. You could explain it yourself if the data was available, but it just isn't.

 

 

Homo species intermingled for millions of years. Nothing new under the sun there. For all I know there may have been no Y chromosomes passed on in other intermingling events also. Or X's either for that matter. Homo sapiens sapiens own X's only go back 200,000 years.

 

No. Neanderthal X chromosomes persist in our modern population.

Edited April 13, 2020 by norseman

[SWWASAS]

Sykes says otherwise with reference to Zana.  

[hiflier]

17 minutes ago, norseman said:

No. Neanderthal X chromosomes persist in our modern population.

 

Hey, you're pretty fast here, bud  I corrected my error but you were faster.

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

.......Home = 23 chromosome pairs, but there's more. out of 16,500 base pairs Denisovans differ by 385 base pairs and Neanderthal by 202.........

 

Do you know how they differ?

 

2 hours ago, norseman said:

........That would make her a Homo Sapien Negroid?.........

 

That's what sasquatch/almas deniers say, but Sykes said that the African markers were not any currently known, which leads to yet more questions. For example, if they are currently unknown, how does he know they are African?

 

I guess I'm just going to have to buy his book, but my strong suspicion is that I'll be left hanging after finishing the last page.

 

.........Also I think in this case Sykes is speaking as human means Homo Sapien. Not the genus Homo.

 

It sure would have been good had he actually said Homo sapien, but he didn't.......at least he isn't quoted as saying it. And even if he had, Zana's description sure doesn't match that of any sub-Saharan African women I've ever heard of........but it sure matches the Patterson film subject. To a T..........

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Hey, you're pretty fast here, bud ..........

 

He's mounted on his fastest horse..........

[CallyCat]

4 hours ago, norseman said:

No Y chromosome of the Neanderthal species remains.....and yet we interbred with them. Why?

 

Its the same reason you cannot breed Ligers or Mules. They are a sterile hybrid. A tiger and a lion are not the same species. But can breed and produce sterile offspring. Same goes for the coupling of a horse and a donkey. Except in very rare cases.

 

https://www.habitatforhorses.org/time-for-a-double-take-a-mules-foal/

 

It would seem that Sapien-Neanderthal female hybrids could have offspring (or at least some of them), but male hybrids were sterile. Which means that we were not the same species of human. What number of percentage is that gap? Of that I’m not sure.

I'm guessing, strictly a guess, that the bun shaped elongated skull of the Neanderthal had difficulty coming through the homo sapien birth canal so those infants didn't survive.  A neanderthal woman probably had a pelvis big enough to accommodate the infant's head of a hybrid but the Y chromosome would be from the human father.

9 hours ago, Franco said:

MY Understanding is we all Have N.DNA

Not African Americans, unless new research has come out that I'm not up to date on. Everyone else has a percentage but it varies.