Jump to content

Neanderthal thread


norseman
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/14/2020 at 1:20 AM, Huntster said:

 

Extremely complicated, do you reckon Zana was a Denisovan? I can't remember if the Denisovan DNA had been sequenced by the time Sykes analyzed Kwit's DNA. 

Edited by CallyCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CallyCat said:

Extremely complicated, do you reckon Zana was a Denisovan? I can't remember if the Denisovan DNA had been sequenced by the time Sykes analyzed Kwit's DNA. 

 

The locals called her an almas, and her description sounded like what the Patterson film subject looks like. Interestingly, the Denisovan finger bone extracted from the Denisova cave was supposedly from a young female, yet it has been repeatedly described as "robust". 

 

Not only am I also curious about the Zana dna markers matching or resembling Denisovan dna, but also any dna found in the New World that is believed to be sasquatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One would think that Sykes would have compared Zana's sons DNA with the Denisovan DNA since both were from Russia.    Of course I always get the impression that Sykes does not want to find something too extraordinary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

One would think that Sykes would have compared Zana's sons DNA with the Denisovan DNA since both were from Russia..........

 

I suspect he has, as well as seeking to compare it to other dna results, and either nothing is there, he has been denied access to various resources, or he wants more before exposing himself to the storm he would generate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CallyCat said:

Extremely complicated, do you reckon Zana was a Denisovan?

 

No.  She was 100% modern human of sub-saharan african descent.    The only question was whether she was from a modern (fitting the current out-of-africa timeline) or more ancient (bringing the current out-of-africa timeline into question) migration.    To determine which, they needed to look at which mtDNA mutations she shared, and did not share, with current sub-saharan african populations.      I don't know what the result was.  

 

The only bearing Zana has on bigfoot, given that, is that if Zana was almasty (not almas, almasty .. see https://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/almas-almasty/) , then almasty are 100% human and not likely yeti or bigfoot.

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MIB said:

........She was 100% modern human of sub-saharan african descent.........

 

I hate to be the linguist/lawyer type, but this kind of language is a huge part of the problem with regard to the cryptid hominins. 

 

Modern: "relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past."

 

Human: "Of the genus Homo, of which Homo sapiens is the only extant human species."

 

Neanderthals were modern humans. Denisovans were modern humans. You and I are modern humans. If sasquatches, almas, almasties, yerens, etc are discovered and (most likely) decided are of the genus Homo, they will also be modern humans. All of these are different species. Thus, if Sykes is saying that Zana was "100% Homo sapien", that is the term he should have used.........but he didn't.

 

Why?

 

........The only question was whether she was from a modern (fitting the current out-of-africa timeline) or more ancient (bringing the current out-of-africa timeline into question) migration........

 

Where is the timeline break you refer to? I believe Sykes suggests that Zana's progeny emerged from Africa over 100,000 years ago.

 

That's it; I'm ordering "The Nature of the Beast" right now so I can quote properly.........

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In practical terms if Homo Erectus showed up on anyone’s door step tomorrow? We wouldn’t be calling it a “modern human”. It’s apart of the genus Homo....yes. But it’s not us. Us as in Homo Sapiens, our species. It has a 800 cc brain. And other archaic features, not shared by us.

 

We have never had this discussion because none of our cousins are left according to science.

 

Thanks for ordering that book.

Edited by norseman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, norseman said:

In practical terms if Homo Erectus showed up on anyone’s door step tomorrow? We wouldn’t be calling it a “modern human”. It’s apart of the genus Homo....yes. But it’s not us. Us as in Homo Sapiens, our species.........

 

Precisely. Mr. Erectus is a Homo, not a Pithacene, so is "100% human", to borrow a popular phrase. Modern? With the earliest fossils dated to 2 million years ago and the most recent at 117,000 years ago, maybe not. But Neanderthals and Denisovans have been around as recently as 24,000-40,000 years ago. Is that modern? If sasquatches, et al, are still alive, would that be modern?

 

........We have never had this discussion because none of our cousins are left according to science........

 

And it appears that modern science wants them so 100% dead that they insist them at least 20,000 years dead.

 

.........Thanks for ordering that book.

 

I've been looking at it for a while. The reviews run very hot or cold, but I should have expected that, because all of this cryptid hominin stuff runs hot or cold. I wll post my own review on the forum after consuming it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2020 at 6:26 PM, norseman said:

In practical terms if Homo Erectus showed up on anyone’s door step tomorrow? We wouldn’t be calling it a “modern human”. It’s apart of the genus Homo....yes. But it’s not us. Us as in Homo Sapiens, our species. It has a 800 cc brain. And other archaic features, not shared by us.

 

We have never had this discussion because none of our cousins are left according to science.

 

Thanks for ordering that book.

I think I saw a couple of them in the supermarket yesterday.    They were really bulked up knuckle draggers.    No mask or gloves and they seemed unconcerned about catching any modern viruses.    

Edited by SWWASAS
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2020 at 9:26 PM, norseman said:

In practical terms if Homo Erectus showed up on anyone’s door step tomorrow? We wouldn’t be calling it a “modern human”. It’s apart of the genus Homo....yes. But it’s not us. Us as in Homo Sapiens, our species. It has a 800 cc brain. And other archaic features, not shared by us.

 

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2020 at 10:31 PM, Huntster said:

 

Precisely. Mr. Erectus is a Homo, not a Pithacene, so is "100% human", to borrow a popular phrase. Modern? With the earliest fossils dated to 2 million years ago and the most recent at 117,000 years ago, maybe not. But Neanderthals and Denisovans have been around as recently as 24,000-40,000 years ago. Is that modern? If sasquatches, et al, are still alive, would that be modern?

 

Don't think I'm the only one but I consider Modern Humans to Be Homo sapiens sapiens. The line that stemmed from the one mtDNA woman in Botswana 200,000 years ago. The same line that produced Cro-Magnon and other sapiens sapiens. The only reason for that is that outside of intermingling Homo sapiens sapiens is what our planet is filled with today. Different haplogroups? Yes. Different races? Yes. But ALL are homo sapiens sapiens- th Modern Humans. WE are the reference by which we categorize all others of different hybrids and origins who were earlier split-offs from the lineage leading to us.

 

It's all about have a reference for comparison, and we're it. For a hypothetical: If Homo sapiens (Cro-Magnon) had died out and left the Denisovans to continue their line? THEY would be the reference and we would be being dug up and called basically an ancient short list. One thing is certain, the Denisovans wouldn't be calling us Homo sapiens sapiens, that's for sure. Maybe Homo sapiens smallbrowiensis? ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Don't think I'm the only one but I consider Modern Humans to Be Homo sapiens sapiens.........

 

I strongly suspect that everybody is mixing terms like that, which adds to the confusion, and is quite simply incorrect.

 

.........The only reason for that is that outside of intermingling Homo sapiens sapiens is what our planet is filled with today. Different haplogroups? Yes. Different races? Yes. But ALL are homo sapiens sapiens- th Modern Humans...........

 

Not if other hominins exist. If Patty was a real creature, she was not Homo sapien, and I don't think she would be a Pithacene, either. I think she would be another species within the genus Homo, thus would be "100% fully human".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree. But Patty, though perhaps Human, wouldn't be Modern Human. TBH, I don't think Patty should be considered even a proto Human. Because I am of the opinion that her brain is not a true Hominid's brain, though she appears to have the more advanced Homo's body. But then, I've already gone into all that so I need not say more.

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I strongly suspect that everybody is mixing terms like that, which adds to the confusion, and is quite simply incorrect.

 

 

 

 

Not if other hominins exist. If Patty was a real creature, she was not Homo sapiens, and I don't think she would be a Pithacene, either. I think she would be another species within the genus Homo, thus would be "100% fully human".

I doubt that some guy would bring Patty home to meet his parents and proclaim her human.      People are entirely too hung up on names.    Most people would only consider anatomically modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) human compared with Patty.   Many homo sapiens that are extinct look more like us than Patty does. 

Edited by SWWASAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^ Correct. We have been "educated" to believe that the only species of the genus Homo left are us (Homo sapien), thus we are the only humans, and the only humans are us. Moreover, as we have seen and experienced as sasquatch "bleevers", any statements or even thoughts otherwise are open to denigration and hostility.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2020 at 8:31 PM, hiflier said:

So I think the Bigfoots hang the roll under, or.....just use rabbits. No offense Madison, but just as a precaution? I wouldn't let your cute pet outa your sight. Those Bigfoots are wily, sneaky and fast. Now that I think about it, the strong odor that witnesses report  could either be the Bigfoot.....or the poor, hapless rabbit who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

Hiflier, you made me laugh! 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...