# If we selectively bred people with highest percentage of Neanderthal DNA over generations.



## RandomPoster (Oct 22, 2018)

If we selectively bred people with the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA, could we keep selecting for higher and higher percentages in order to re-create Neanderthals or at least people with much higher percentages over a long period of time?


----------



## konradv (Oct 22, 2018)

RandomPoster said:


> If we selectively bred people with the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA, could we keep selecting for higher and higher percentages in order to re-create Neanderthals or at least people with much higher percentages over a long period of time?


I think it's already been done.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Oct 24, 2018)

konradv said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> > If we selectively bred people with the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA, could we keep selecting for higher and higher percentages in order to re-create Neanderthals or at least people with much higher percentages over a long period of time?
> ...


You do know that Neandertals brains were larger than Homo Sapiens ?


----------



## konradv (Oct 24, 2018)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > RandomPoster said:
> ...


Size isn't everything.  The prefrontal cortex is what counts.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Oct 24, 2018)

konradv said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Neandertals where more sophisticated than most people think.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 24, 2018)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


*Neanderthals Didn't Die Out; They Were Killed Off.  That Is Our Duty to Evolutionary Progress.*

Depending on whether the anthropologist is a Whitey Hating Whitey misfit and a total mind-slave to bitter academic Department Heads, fossil evidence can be misinterpreted because the false prestige of the universities makes the brainwashed public give such escapist bookworms the benefit of the doubt.  The Neanderthals were no better than existentially dangerous and totally unfit wild animals.


----------



## konradv (Oct 24, 2018)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


What a way to talk about your relatives!!!  Remember, if you're of European extraction, the % is higher than most other groups.

As much as 2.6% of your DNA is from Neanderthals. This is what it's doing - Los Angeles Times


----------



## RandomPoster (Oct 24, 2018)

konradv said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



  Scientists are now saying between 1.5-4% for some groups.

Scientists to grow 'mini-brains' using Neanderthal DNA

  Besides having larger brains, Neanderthals made the first known boats, first known glue, as well as many types of bone tools.  The first evidence of Cro-Magnons using tar is AFTER they travelled to Europe.  Scientists are saying that Neanderthal tools were at least, if not more complex than those of Cro-Magnons of the time.  Their artwork was not as well developed and it is suspected that they were less social.  So, Neanderthals were better at important things and Cro-Magnons were better at making beads and socializing and silly stuff like that.  It is now believed that because of the harsh climate they were adapted to, they were far less numerous than Cro-Magnons and were simply absorbed into the gene pool.

Evidence suggests Neanderthals took to boats before modern humans

How Neanderthals Made First Glue From Tar To Make Stronger Weapons

Neanderthals were not inferior to modern humans, study finds

  "The widely held notion that Neanderthals were dimwitted and that their inferior intelligence allowed them to be driven to extinction by the much brighter ancestors of modern humans is not supported by scientific evidence, according to a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder."

  ""Researchers were comparing Neanderthals not to their contemporaries on other continents but to their successors," Villa said. "It would be like comparing the performance of Model T Fords, widely used in America and Europe in the early part of the last century, to the performance of a modern-day Ferrari and conclude that Henry Ford was cognitively inferior to Enzo Ferrari."


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 25, 2018)

RandomPoster said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


*Feralphilia*

Decadent academic nerds, inferior themselves in manhood and any kind of deep understanding of the world, think they are getting even with the common-sense society that rejected them by glorifying all unfit humanoid species.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 26, 2018)

Damn Sage, I didn't think that they could get any dumber than Crusader Frank, but you have just proven me wrong. As someone with the upper amount of Neanderthal DNA, I am quite willing to bet that at 75, I am physically and mentally superior to you. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 26, 2018)

konradv said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> > If we selectively bred people with the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA, could we keep selecting for higher and higher percentages in order to re-create Neanderthals or at least people with much higher percentages over a long period of time?
> ...


Actually, I think the Neanderthals would disavow any relationship with these two turds.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Oct 27, 2018)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Neanderthals were own the way out before Homo Sapiens even appeared in Europe. Changing climate and competition finished the job.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 27, 2018)

RandomPoster said:


> If we selectively bred people with the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA, could we keep selecting for higher and higher percentages in order to re-create Neanderthals or at least people with much higher percentages over a long period of time?


No. The what you call Neandertal DNA is DNA that has not been replaced by "modern" DNA. The original Neandertal DNA for most of the genome is gone forever.

In the race for selection, their DNA lost.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 28, 2018)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > RandomPoster said:
> ...


Yeah the only problem was that the space was used primarily for vision instead of thinking.


----------



## Rosy (Oct 28, 2018)

RandomPoster said:


> If we selectively bred people with the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA, could we keep selecting for higher and higher percentages in order to re-create Neanderthals or at least people with much higher percentages over a long period of time?


There would be changes, I doubt if you could recreate a true Neanderthal because some genes are dominant and those human dominant genes would have wiped out the corresponding Neanderthal genes.  On the other hand we all have so called junk DNA that is not coded for, the possibility exist that this is a library that holds everything that we ever were, for the purpose of reverting if the environment reverted somehow.


----------



## Tax Man (Oct 28, 2018)

RandomPoster said:


> If we selectively bred people with the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA, could we keep selecting for higher and higher percentages in order to re-create Neanderthals or at least people with much higher percentages over a long period of time?


We already have them! Just look at conservatives in the south east of America.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 28, 2018)

RandomPoster said:


> If we selectively bred people with the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA, could we keep selecting for higher and higher percentages in order to re-create Neanderthals or at least people with much higher percentages over a long period of time?


Nope. You cant make a dog a wolf by breeding dogs that have a little wolf in them over and over again. All you will wind up with is a inbred dog with hip dysplasia


----------



## Rosy (Oct 28, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> > If we selectively bred people with the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA, could we keep selecting for higher and higher percentages in order to re-create Neanderthals or at least people with much higher percentages over a long period of time?
> ...


I think that you might be wrong, as all the Wolf DNA is still there, this would not just be breeding though, the dogs would need to survive in the wild where nature would kill all the weak as it always does..  Bye the way there is no such thing as dog DNA, as dogs are wolves, same DNA same species


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 29, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > RandomPoster said:
> ...


No dogs are a subspecies of wolves. Dogs have slightly different DNA than wolves. Thats because dogs have been bred with other canines like foxes, coyotes, dholes, and jackals. Dogs are wolves closest relatives but there is some DNA difference.  That DNA difference is what makes wolves wild. Most dogs have no clue how to survive in the wild and would starve to death without some human intervention before they learned.  I used that analogy to make a point. Dogs and wolves are more similar than Neanderthals and humans.  If you cant turn a dog population into wolves in terms of appearance, behavior etc then you could never recreate a neanderthal from say europeans that only have at most 4% neanderthal DNA.


----------



## Rosy (Oct 29, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Dogs are not a subspecies.  They are genetically the same and as such can interbreed perfectly 

In fact there are no wolf dog hybrids because hybrids require two species


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 29, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Yes dogs are a subspecies of wolves. Homo sapiens and neanderthals could and did interbreed and they arent as closely related as dogs and wolves.

Dog Family: Facts About Canines & Their Cousins

"*Canis lupus — wolf, gray wolf (Subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris — domestic dog)*"


----------



## Rosy (Oct 29, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Dogs are not a subspecies of wolves.

If this were true then wolf dog mixes would be sterile. They are fertile because they are genetically 98.99 percent identical and the same species.

I own 4 at the moment

https://www.quora.com/If-dogs-and-w...an-they-breed-and-still-have-viable-offspring


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 29, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...



You dont sound very bright. Subspecies doesnt mean not the same species Why would a dog wolf mix be sterile?  Dogs are a subspecies of wolf and as such they can breed and produce fertile offspring.  I already posted the link that tells you dogs are a subspecies.

"*Canis lupus — wolf, gray wolf (Subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris — domestic dog)*"

Note that both designations say Canis Lupus. Dogs as a subspecies have the designation of familiaris added on. Your not good at this are you?


----------



## Rosy (Oct 29, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


You are fully ignorant.  If wolves and dogs were different species, the offspring would be sterile.

It's a fact and you dont like being wrong  a horse and a donkey or a lion and tiger cross are all sterile because that is how genetics works.   You are creating your own schizzo rules.

Now go peel the potatoes


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 29, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


I didnt say they were completely different species dummy. I said dogs were subspecies. Do you understand what a subspecies is? I ask because you are either stupid or you are drunk.


----------



## Rosy (Oct 29, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


I just raised a litter of champion hunting dogs.  Again under DNA analysis a dog and wolf are the same animal.  Pug like mutants are born to wild wolves, but they can not live and the mother eats them to feed the normal pups.  Only retarded humans keep the mutants alive accounting for every dog breed that is genetically a wolf


Did you finish the potatoes yet

130


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 29, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


I dont care what you raised. That doesnt mean you know anything at all about science. Dogs are genetically a subspecies of wolf. Thats the main reason they have a different scientific name. Ask any wildlife biologist like the one I linked you to.  hell you even admitted their DNA was not 100% the same.

Subspecies of Canis lupus

*Canis lupus has 37 subspecies* currently described, including the dingo, _Canis lupus dingo_, *and the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris*, and many subspecies of wolf throughout the Northern Hemisphere.


----------



## HenryBHough (Oct 29, 2018)

I think a Democrat regime would more willingly fund breeding Neanderthals.  It would make their recruiting so much easier.  Fortunately they only think one (1) election ahead.


----------



## Rosy (Oct 29, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


I breed champion hunters, and I find you in a thread rebreeding Neanderthals.  Lol, good luck

Again all dogs are created from mutated wolf DNA this makes them identical, just different looking.  They are the same species


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 29, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Not sure what breeding champion hunters has to do with anything.

You sound like an idiot. You do realize that the fact that the DNA is mutated means its not identical dont you? 

mu·tate
/ˈmyo͞otāt/
_verb_

*change or cause to change* in form or nature.


----------



## Rosy (Oct 29, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Now you seem to be claiming that animals with mutations are subspecies.  Kid, you are babbling at this point.  Dogs and wolves are the same species, as odd as that may seem with a toy poodle and a grey wolf.

You have different DNA then a person from Norway or Japan the Congo or a native American Does this make you subspecies to them?


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 29, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Nope. I just pointed out you dont know what you are talking about. You are the one that said a mutation means the DNA is identical. You stepped on your own dick by saying that. Its not my fault you didnt know what "mutation" means.


----------



## Rosy (Oct 29, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Dog owners might disagree, but as far as evolutionary biologists are concerned, all dogs are just dogs. It may seem odd that _Canis (lupus) familiaris_ extends from rabbit-sized Chihuahuas to Great Danes which can be almost the size of a small pony, whereas seemingly much smaller differences place many animals into separate species or sub-species. One has to dig a bit into evolutionary theory for this to make sense.

The dog is a direct descendant of the grey wolf (_Canis lupus_), with evidence that lots of different wolves fed into the dog gene pool over the years. In the course of dog domestication, their behaviour, morphology and physique has changed, and differences among dog breeds are indeed astonishing. Imagine if future palaeontologists were to find Chihuahua remains in the fossil record: this animal would appear to have little in common with wolves.

But these differences among dog breeds – and between dogs and wolves – aren’t enough to warrant recognition as distinct species. Dogs are simply too young, from an evolutionary perspective.

It usually takes hundreds of thousands of years or more for mammals to evolve into distinct new species, requiring the slow accumulation of mutations that cause inheritable changes to its physical characteristics – or “phenotype”. Archaeological data and analysis of DNA from today’s dogs and wolves, as well as ancient remains, suggest that domestication started about 16,000-40,000 years ago, with most current dog breeds originating in the past 200 years.

*We’ve sped up dog evolution – but not enough*
Why dog breeds aren't considered separate species

How about this, you stick to breeding Neanderthals, and I will stick to breeding my shorthaired wolves

Here is one of my shorthaired wolves hunting
The modern wolf


----------



## RandomPoster (Oct 29, 2018)

"The dog is a divergent subspecies of the gray wolf and was derived from a now-extinct population of Late Pleistocene wolves."

Subspecies of Canis lupus - Wikipedia

  Saying it is a sub-species is saying they are the same species.  For example, a donkey and a horse are two different species and the resultant hybrid is a sterile mule.  The wolf and the dog are two different sub-species within the same species and can freely interbreed

Horse = _*Equus ferus*
Donkey = *Equus africanus asinus*_

Equus is the genus, whereas ferus is the species for horse and africanus asinus is the species for donkey.

_*Canis lupus occidentalis* _= North American Timber Wolf
*Canis lupus familiaris* = Domestic Dog

Canis is the genus.  Lupus is the species.  Occidentalis is the subspecies for Timber Wolf, whereas Familiaris is the subspecies for dog.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 4, 2018)

Dogs and wolves are both subspecies of the same species, Canis Lupus.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 4, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Your dogs are not wolves. If they were wolves they would look like wolves. There is a reason you cant breed 2 wolves together and get a basset hound or vice versa.


----------



## RandomPoster (Nov 4, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



  The reason you can't breed two wolves together and get a basset hound is the same reason you can't breed two Labrador Retrievers together and get a basset hound.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 4, 2018)

RandomPoster said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Correct. Different DNA which proves my point. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## RandomPoster (Nov 4, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



  So, are Labrador Retrievers and Basset Hounds different species?


----------



## miketx (Nov 4, 2018)

Another fact many overlook as that liberals for some reason cannot see how they are destroying themselves.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 4, 2018)

RandomPoster said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > RandomPoster said:
> ...


Who said they were?  We are talking about DNA. See the OP and my responses to Rosy on the subject of dogs DNA being different from wolf DNA.


----------



## RandomPoster (Nov 4, 2018)

You said.  "Your dogs are not wolves. If they were wolves they would look like wolves. There is a reason you cant breed 2 wolves together and get a basset hound or vice versa."

  His dogs may not look wolves, except they are the same species.  Dogs are a sub-species of wolf.

  The fact that breeding wolves produces doesn't produce two basset hounds does not change this.  The fact that breeding two Labrador Retrievers together does not produce a basset hound does not change the fact that the Labrador Retriever and the Basset hound are the same species anymore than the fact that you can't breed two wolves together and get a basset hound.

Why dog breeds aren't considered separate species

  "Dog owners might disagree, but as far as evolutionary biologists are concerned, all dogs are just dogs. It may seem odd that _Canis (lupus) familiaris_ extends from rabbit-sized Chihuahuas to Great Danes which can be almost the size of a small pony, whereas seemingly much smaller differences place many animals into separate species or sub-species. One has to dig a bit into evolutionary theory for this to make sense."

  "But these differences among dog breeds – and between dogs and wolves – aren’t enough to warrant recognition as distinct species. Dogs are simply too young, from an evolutionary perspective.

  It usually takes hundreds of thousands of years or more for mammals to evolve into distinct new species, requiring the slow accumulation of mutations that cause inheritable changes to its physical characteristics – or “phenotype”. Archaeological data and analysis of DNA from today’s dogs and wolves, as well as ancient remains, suggest that domestication started about 16,000-40,000 years ago, with most current dog breeds originating in the past 200 years."


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 4, 2018)

RandomPoster said:


> You said.  "Your dogs are not wolves. If they were wolves they would look like wolves. There is a reason you cant breed 2 wolves together and get a basset hound or vice versa."
> 
> His dogs may not look wolves, except they are the same species.  Dogs are a sub-species of wolf.
> 
> ...


Yes thats what I said. If you note I didnt didnt include the word species in that statement. You seem to have problems with reading comprehension. None of that has anything to do with my point. They have different DNA hence you cant breed two dogs with a little wolf in them and get a wolf.

And again dogs and wolves are not the same species. Dogs are a sub species. They make that distinction for a reason.  There is an observable difference.


----------



## RandomPoster (Nov 4, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> > You said.  "Your dogs are not wolves. If they were wolves they would look like wolves. There is a reason you cant breed 2 wolves together and get a basset hound or vice versa."
> ...



  Yes, like I said wolves are Canis Lupus and dogs are Canis Lupus Familiaris.  They are two different sub-species within the same species.
.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 4, 2018)

RandomPoster said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > RandomPoster said:
> ...


Yeah but that doesnt change the point. The point is that dogs have different DNA from wolves which is why you cant get a wolf from breeding two dogs with a little wolf DNA in them.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 5, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



A mutation good bad or neutral does not create a subspecies.  You seem to be quite racist


----------



## Rosy (Nov 5, 2018)

RandomPoster said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > RandomPoster said:
> ...



No dog understands this, which is required for them to breed with the selected member of the subspecies group.  Conclusion, dogs are wolves


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 5, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Who said a mutation creates a subspecies? White people are the result of a mutation and they are still homo sapiens. Its amusing that you are trying to deflect to draw attention away from you being too stupid to know that a mutation is a change in DNA and therefore is different from the DNA it was previously.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 5, 2018)

Rosy said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


No dogs are not wolfs and if you even have had dog/wolf mixes like you claimed you would instantly know that.  Dogs and wolves are vastly different in temperament and behavior. A wolf is a wild animal which is why its illegal to own one in most areas of the US.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Retard, I said that dog mutations do not make them a subspecies


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > RandomPoster said:
> ...



Okeedokee


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


No retard. You said the DNA was identical even after you admitted it wasnt. 

*"Again all dogs are created from mutated wolf DNA this makes them identical"*

If its mutated how are wolves and dogs identical dummy?  if they are identical why cant you breed two basset hounds and get a wolf cub?


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Dog and Wolf DNA is identical...……..

Silly girl


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


No stupid. Its not identical. If it was identical you wouldnt be able to tell their DNA apart.


----------



## fncceo (Nov 6, 2018)

konradv said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



That's just something men with small brains say to make themselves feel better.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Under DNA screening every dog appears to be a wolf.

You silly girl


----------



## fncceo (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...



Only identical twins have identical DNA.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

fncceo said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Even they dont have identical DNA. Epigenetic changes that occur after the egg split account for these differences in most cases.

The Claim: Identical Twins Have Identical DNA


----------



## fncceo (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...



True, in utero is the closest to identical that DNA can be.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


No dummy. Under DNA screening you can even tell a pitbull from a collie. Damn youre stupid or ignorant. Maybe both 

30 Fascinating Differences Between Wolves and Dogs - Dog Discoveries

The large animal is a wolf. The smaller a dog.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

fncceo said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Dogs and wolves have all the same species Id markers 

Thus they are the same species. Odd as that might seem


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


And both pitbulls and collies have b.c wolf dna


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


That doesnt change the point that you can tell a pitbull from a collie using a DNA screen and a dog from a wolf dummy.


----------



## fncceo (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...



It's not odd at all.  Dogs have evolved from wolves not through natural selection but through selective breeding over tens of thousands of years.  

They remain the same species despite the differences in breeds.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

fncceo said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


He seems to have confused himself. He is talking about species when everyone else was talking DNA.


----------



## fncceo (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...



It's a confusing topic to most people.  There is a lot of misinformation, especially from TV, on just what DNA is and what it does.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

fncceo said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Well he was fucking up non confusing things like claiming a mutation means the DNA is identical. All he had to do was look up mutation in the dictionary before embarrassing himself.


----------



## fncceo (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



If you can't embarrass yourself in an anonymous forum, where else can you?


----------



## DOTR (Nov 6, 2018)

Not really though we would preserve what we have. Whites, especially Europeans, are Neanderthal-Sapiens hybrids. Asians are Denosovian-Sapien hybrids. These crosses created modern civilized humans.
   Sub Saharan blacks however have no admixture of Neanderthal and are archaic humans. African blacks bred back with homo heidelbergensis and other archaic primate species. Any Neanderthal that blacks have in diaspora is very low and only entered their race through breeding with Europeans.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


I never said that doofus.

I own your brain.

Respond now


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 6, 2018)

DOTR said:


> These crosses created modern civilized humans.


If anyone wants to find the nugget of madeup bullshit at the center of this racist, ignorant rant...this is it.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 6, 2018)

MarkDuffy said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> > If we selectively bred people with the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA, could we keep selecting for higher and higher percentages in order to re-create Neanderthals or at least people with much higher percentages over a long period of time?
> ...



  Bullshit. Neanderthals were a contemporaneous species with Sapiens...not a predecessor. They were bred out of existence as a separate species and incorporated into European Homo Sapiens.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Dogs are 99.9 percent wolf, their species markers however are IDENTICAL
Stop coddling your dog—he’s 99.9% wolf


----------



## fncceo (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...



Totally...


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


only 100% would be identical fool. Stop being a fool.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Dogs are 99.9 percent wolf, their species markers however are IDENTICAL
> Stop coddling your dog—he’s 99.9% wolf


   Dogs share a common ancestor with Wolves but are not wolves. Their closest living relatives are Gray Wolves but this is not an ancestral species. The common ancestor of wolves and dogs has long been extinct.
  Dogs have always been a problem in cladistics. Traditionally they have been Canis Familiaris as opposed to Canis Lupus. There is no good solution but the modern trend is towards canis lupus familiaris.
  Doesnt matter. A wolf is obviously not a dog.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 6, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > These crosses created modern civilized humans.
> ...




  Yeah that science stuff is racist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 6, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


No, you are racist, and you would fail a science test on this material.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Stop coddling your dog—he’s 99.9% wolf



  With DNA that .1% makes all the difference. Its misleading because it isnt a binary function IE 0% shared is different and 99% shared is the same. Humans and gorillas are only 1.6% different.  Are we are 98.4% gorilla?


----------



## DOTR (Nov 6, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




  You have always opposed science in favor of liberal fantasies. Aliens anyone?

  Dispute any of what I said.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 6, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, you are racist, and you would fail a science test on this material.



  I see you are low in Neanderthal genes. Have fun with this.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Dogs are 99.9 percent wolf, their species markers however are IDENTICAL
> ...


Explain how a bulldog or pug that can not either mate or give birth naturally is anything except a horrible mutation, of the parent wolf


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are racist, and you would fail a science test on this material.
> ...


Oh my God, Darwins tree of life that begins with MUD.....

Really


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Stop coddling your dog—he’s 99.9% wolf
> ...


Why people always use the gorilla is beyond me, because we have genes common to fruit fly's


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Being a mutation is the primary reason it cant be 100% identical you dipshit.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


We dont have 98% of our genes in common with the fruit fly dummy.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


The species identification markers in dogs and wolves are identical.

Silly girl


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


thats because they are in the same species classification dummy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



That doesnt make them genetically identical.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


A dog is as genetically identical to a wolf as any other wolf is to a wolf


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Your post is patently and provably false as I have already told you. Doubling down on your stupidity is not going to change the facts.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...




Give this up before you are in any deeper over something that is really just a curiosity.

  Not gonna mess with this much more BUT...if they are identical then why do wolves only come into season once per year while dogs are fertile year around?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 6, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are racist, and you would fail a science test on this material.
> ...


oh look, modern humans originated in Africa. Sorry racist puke, your rhetoric is all embarrassing horseshit.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 6, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Homo Sapiens did...along with chimps, bonobos and giraffes. Some of the sapiens moved out of Africa and hybridized with denosovians and Neanderthals in the Levant and then in a crescent across Europe to the Caucasus Mountains. 
   Oh look caucasians originated in Europe. The Africans not advanced enough to travel continents remained in Africa and never hybridized with Neanderthals. They back bred with more archaic hominids. 

   How long have you considered science to be witchcraft ?


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Explain how a pug that can not reproduce without human help is a subspecies and not a mutation of the wolf.

Silly poo


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


I wouldnt brag about interbreeding with neanderthals. They are a failed species. Homo Sapiens came from Africa without interbreeding.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 6, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Neanderthals interbred with modern man, they were assimilated much like the majority of American Indians


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 6, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


That only makes people with neanderthal dna part homo sapiens. Real homo sapiens are pure with no failed homo neanderthalensis dna.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 7, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



   Correct. You and I are a different species to a large extent.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 7, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


False, and you just failed a 5th grade science quiz.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 7, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Wrong. You are a sub species. I am true homo sapiens


----------



## DOTR (Nov 7, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



   Yes you are. A very archaic form of the original sapiens which bred back with proto humans at least three times.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 7, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...



   Australian aborigines and the San (Khoisan) in East Africa were well on their way in the process of becoming non human species when the British stepped in. Colonialism arrested the process.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 7, 2018)

Rosy said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...



   It isn’t a mutation of a wolf rosy. Pugs aren’t wolves. They have mutations sure...but they are really descended from the mastiff branch of dogs. 
   I don’t like the exaggerated braxhycephalic breeding of pugs either.  But they typically live what 15 years? Not quite as good as other small dogs but respectful longevity  still.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 7, 2018)

DOTR said:


> A very archaic form of the original sapiens which bred back with proto humans at least three times.


Which was exactly your description of europeans. Dude, you are incoherent.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 7, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Pugs can't run, if they do they suffocate.  Pugs and bulldogs also can not mate or give natural birth.  Mastiffs are wolves too.  The number of generations or time since the first wolf has been domesticated is not enough for speciation to occur


----------



## DOTR (Nov 7, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Pugs can't run, if they do they suffocate.  Pugs and bulldogs also can not mate or give natural birth.  Mastiffs are wolves too.  The number of generations or time since the first wolf has been domesticated is not enough for speciation to occur



  I never knew that about Pugs. What a shame.

  Ive always enjoyed and raised dogs I considered natural...primarily the German Shepherd. And before you think it isn't a natural dog consider that you may be thinking of the American lines. liberals have severely crippled the American German Shepherd show lines. The last one I raised was a German line. Almost an entirely different breed from the American ones.
  But again..a shame about the pugs. Sounds kind of miserable for them. (Still not a wolf though  )

American Line


----------



## DOTR (Nov 7, 2018)

Rosy said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



what the hell? Mud?


----------



## DOTR (Nov 7, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> That only makes people with neanderthal dna part homo sapiens. Real homo sapiens are pure with no failed homo neanderthalensis dna.





Asclepias said:


> I wouldnt brag about interbreeding with neanderthals. They are a failed species. Homo Sapiens came from Africa without interbreeding.



   Actually, as i said earlier, Sub Saharan African Blacks had no admixture of Neanderthal like Europeans. But yes they were crossbred too. As the chart I put up shows they bred back to the various more primitive, archaic, species of the genus Homo remaining in Africa such as Homo heidelbergensis (see facial reconstruction below)



 


 While European ancestors left Africa and hybridized with Homo Neanderthalis (facial reconstruction of Neanderthal female below LINK )


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Wrong. You are a sub species. I am true homo sapiens




Ahh liberals and their genetic purity fantasies. You are a result of hybrids between Homo sapiens and more primitive members of the genus Homo.  Dont let it bother you. The liberal obsession with genetic purity really doesnt stand up to scrutiny.
     You should get a genetic test done. 23andme really doesn't break it down into the more primitive pre-humans which make up part of your genome but it will absolutely show the amount of Neanderthal SNPs if you have any at all through white ancestry. It's really interesting. Too bad 23andme doesn't break down the others but I think I can figure out why.

  First, this natural bias is probably to some degree because people with Neanderthal genes discovered CRISPR, DNA, Mendelian inheritance, evolution, cell meiosis, chromosomes and so on and so on...so its no surprise to find the popular DNA tests biased towards Neanderthal SNPs.
  But secondly the sub Saharan African admixture in your genome is really just an intensifying of genes we already all possessed. No doubt you would have a greater number of the more primitive pre Sapiens genes but its a difference in degree rather than kind. 
  Just guessing here as to their reasoning.

  I am a product of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals...a species which led the way out of Africa. Call it a sub species if you like...I'm easy and it makes for interesting conversation.
   But if you want to use trinomial cladistics then it would have to apply across the board wouldn't it? So if I am _Homo sapiens neanderthalis _then you would be _Homo sapiens heidelbergensis_ ...with perhaps some mixture of _Homo erectus_ as well?


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Which was exactly your description of europeans. Dude, you are incoherent.



  I've noticed than when you feel afraid and/or intimidated by being exposed to thoughtcrimes  in science discussions your replies get really choppy and nonsensical.
   Maybe you would be less stressed if you were to switch to posting here Arts & Crafts


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

konradv said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> > If we selectively bred people with the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA, could we keep selecting for higher and higher percentages in order to re-create Neanderthals or at least people with much higher percentages over a long period of time?
> ...



  Actually they both appear to have rather fewer Neanderthal variants than the average for whites. They lack the prominence of the brow ridge and forehead.


----------



## konradv (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Actually they both appear to have rather fewer Neanderthal variants than the average for whites. They lack the prominence of the brow ridge and forehead.


There's been some obvious plastic surgery going on here.  They'll do anything to try and fit in.  Look at the vacant non-comprehending eyes.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > A very archaic form of the original sapiens which bred back with proto humans at least three times.
> ...



  It’s difficult to speak with people as dense as yourself because I keep having to stop and explain basics to you.
   Neanderthals weren’t proto-humans. They were contemporaneous with Homo sapiens and shared a common ancestor. Put another way...Homo neantheralis were not an ancestral species to Homo sapiens and so not proto-humans.
   I wish I had a simpler way of explaining it but the fact is it wouldn’t matter to you anyhow.  You are an example of they typical liberal who holds science and advancement back. You’ve decided, with a very spotty education , that since these facts don’t seem Marxist approved then they are facts that must be repressed by any sophistry necessary. Typical barbarian. 
   I uploaded a chart of Homo lineages accepted by science.  Get hot refuting it. Or go back to your ET studies. 
   Science and civilization have suffered under your type for centuries.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Pugs can't run, if they do they suffocate.  Pugs and bulldogs also can not mate or give natural birth.  Mastiffs are wolves too.  The number of generations or time since the first wolf has been domesticated is not enough for speciation to occur
> ...


I love German Sheps as well, but I would never buy one for fear of hip dysplasia.  I saw a 10 month old pup shep at the dog park a couple of years ago, very skinny, the woman was feeding him chicken but he wouldn't eat, he ran around in the small dog section of the park for a while then laid down.  Saddest thing I ever saw, idiots line breed for show contest and have no clue that line breeding destroys lives


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


You never read Darwins letter to Hooker?

Really mud, or perhaps pond scum if you prefer

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some "warm little pond".

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E. My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity & c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...



  Pretty much any large breed is suceptable to HD.
   If you like GSD but fear HD you should make sure and get an S.V dog. Not foolproof but the Germans are working like hell on this. I like their approach.  It isn’t so much line breeding but early breeding perpetuating the problem. They have developed/are developing a system of  colored breeding papers which show desirable sires and dams only after offspring have reached a few years old showing no signs of HD. Hope it works.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...



   Ahhh ok. Gotcha. 

  You seem interested in this subject and I never tire of recommending Nick Lan to people who like to read this stuff. His books are a little less readable than, say, Dawkins or Gould or Zimmer or Wilson but his theories are worth wading through. He postulates an ion gradient across micro-pores in deep sea vents. (Not him alone but he seems to be the theorie’s most eloquent proponent)
   But still...why just once? 

Hydrothermal vents and the origins of life


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Yes I am the original homo sapiens. Not the one that bred with neanderthals and suffered a mutation that caused a lack of melanin and later suffered  a period of extensive inbreeding.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. You are a sub species. I am true homo sapiens
> ...


Already took a DNA test. I literally have less than .01% of neanderthal DNA. The result of one of my ancestors being raped during slavery.  Homo sapiens led the way out of Africa. The ones that went to europe mixed with neanderthals.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Yes I am the original homo sapiens. Not the one that bred with neanderthals and suffered a mutation that caused a lack of melanin and later suffered  a period of extensive inbreeding.



  Well no...you arent. You are the result of Homo sapiens backcrossing with primitive proto-humans.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Already took a DNA test. I literally have less than .01% of neanderthal DNA. The result of one of my ancestors being raped during slavery. .



  So one of your ancestors was a slave owning rapist? 23andme is a neat service isnt it?


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I am the original homo sapiens. Not the one that bred with neanderthals and suffered a mutation that caused a lack of melanin and later suffered  a period of extensive inbreeding.
> ...


I am the result of homo sapiens that are pure homo sapiens.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Already took a DNA test. I literally have less than .01% of neanderthal DNA. The result of one of my ancestors being raped during slavery. .
> ...


Not sure if he was a slave owner. Probably an Irish overseer.  Yes these DNA services are great.

"*You have zero variants associated with Neanderthal traits."*


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Homo sapiens led the way out of Africa. The ones that went to europe mixed with neanderthals.



  Not the homo sapiens you are descended from. You are descended from the ones which didnt have that urge to move out and explore. The ones you are descended from stayed put and bred with archaic humans...who hadnt moved around much either.
  The homo sapiens who moved north and developed agriculture and civilization were the ones who bred with neanderthal women. The Founder Effect seems to have been tremendously strong in that small advanced group who crossed the Levant. I guess you could say they were the most exceptional of their species.
  And yes it was only Neanderthal women. There are no Neanderthal Y chromosomes remaining curiously enough.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Homo sapiens led the way out of Africa. The ones that went to europe mixed with neanderthals.
> ...


Correct. My ancestors stayed in Africa and begin the first civilizations.  The ones that mixed with neanderthals actually regressed which is why they inbred with each other and lived in caves until they were educated by the ones that stayed in Africa and the Middle East.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



 No you arent. Science has proven that you are the result of homo sapiens mating with archaic humans such as Homo heidelberginsis. Should I help you understand? Hold on ill give you a cheat sheet. No thanks necessary.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Sorry. I am the result of original man. Pure homo sapiens.

Homo heidelbergensis

"Homo heidelbergensis ("Heidelberg Man") is an extinct, potentially distinct species of the genus Homo and *may be the direct ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis in Europe"*


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



   I have 279 variants. The highest recorded so far is upper 300's. Hey we should all accept our ancestry... primitive or not...rapist or not....neanderthal or not...and make the most of it.

    I find it interesting that we can trace the story of my ancestors from the crossing of two species, both small groups with the intelligence and drive to trek to new lands, from that humble crossbred beginning...to their landing on the moon.

  I am sure your species did great things as well...hey the NBA is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


The only reason you landed on the moon is because a Black woman charted the way. Neanderthals had the mental capacity of a mentally disabled 12 year old.  That big head was filled with a brain that primarily was devoted to visual acuity. So they were probably great at seeing sudden movements. They werent even smart enough to move to other climates which is why they died off. Your particular crossbreeding only resulted in white people with big heads and a tendency towards violence. 

Neanderthals Doomed by Vision-Centered Brains

"With competition from humans, a bitter ice age and tiny trading networks, the Neanderthals probably couldn't access resources from better climates, which they needed in order survive, he said."


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


All humans that are not African have Neanderthal DNA...………………….


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



  Potentially? lol. May be? Homo heidelbergenis is absolutely the direct ancestor of both sapiens and neanderthals. And denisovians as well. 
   Homo hei. was a  proto-human species that was supplanted by Homo-sapiens neanderthalis, whites, and which bred into Homo sapiens heidelbergensis to create sub saharan blacks. 
  While the more primitive H. Sapiens heidelbergenis remained in Africa the Neanderthals, Denisovians and the more advanced H Sapiens moved north and interbred.
  I am not sure you know what "inbreeding" is...but crossbreeding with another species a about as far from inbreeding as you can get. In fact it was probaby the outbreeding that allowed European and Asians to spread around the world and advance science and civilization.
  The sub saharan Africans could only backcross with the archaic proto-humans who lacked the ability to plan and organize migrations as well.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


That would make them less than human but thanks for agreeing.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Ahh Hollywood...keeping sub saharan africans educated since 1923


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


I said you guys inbred with each other after interbreeding with neanderthals. That is why you have horrible genes caused by a population bottleneck.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> All humans that are not African have Neanderthal DNA...………………….



  True. And some have another...Denisovan. Neanderthal DNA made modern humans for the most part. When the more intelligent Homo Sapiens left Africa they found Neanderthals and Denisovians ahead of them. Three adventuresome species...its no wonder the peoples of Asia and Europe conquered the Earth and then built spacecraft to leap into space.
  Africa was left out but they did try eventually...decades after we went to the moon Congo built a rocket to carry a rat into space. Well close..they hoped it would reach an attitude of 6 miles...which is what thy considered "space". I dont think we minded the cultural appropriation too much. The rat probably minded.
  After an intense three month research program, and an incredible 50,000 budget  and the fattening up of the rat Kavira for the epic journey into sorta seeing space from a distance the rocket was launched.
  it made it to about ten feet before exploding which is something I suppose. The Congolese government called it a great success because "everyone could see the fireball".  Gotta love em..but poor Kavira.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



  From the man who claims to be pure homo sapiens lol As I said...population genetics is yet another subject that Homo sapiens heidelbegensis never mastered. A stationary stagnant group will always be inbred while migrations lead to crossbreeding along the way.
  Sub Saharan Africans only had proto-humans to breed with. The not quite humans. In dogs and cattle we would call this "line breeding" or "back crossing"...a severe form of inbreeding.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> I said you guys inbred with each other after interbreeding with neanderthals. That is why you have horrible genes caused by a population bottleneck.



Did you even finish high school? LOL. As you flounder you sink your own racist self. The only known Homo genetic bottleneck occurred among sub saharan Africans after the more advanced groups had left.

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

  You are trying way too hard here. And leave your daughter alone! She has studying to do and will be a great biologist if your old ass will quit asking her stupid questions


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...



Sorry dog. You white boys are doomed. Even your own people have admitted this.  

Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks, Study Finds

*"As would be expected with the "out of Africa" theory, the researchers found Africans had the greatest amount of genetic diversity, "*

""Since we tend to think of European populations as quite large, we did not expect to see a significant difference in the distribution of neutral and deleterious variation between the two populations," said senior co-author Carlos Bustamante, an assistant professor of biological statistics and computational biology at Cornell.

It's been known for years that all non-Africans are descended from a small group, perhaps only a few dozen individuals, who left the continent between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.

*But the Cornell study, published in the journal Nature Thursday, indicates that Europeans went through a second "population bottleneck,"* probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number."


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > All humans that are not African have Neanderthal DNA...………………….
> ...


We came here from space when God left us here, now that we are leaving God is proven and we are it...….


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


I see someone took the sci fi movie Prometheus a little bit too seriously. 

God is Black and thats why he created Black people first in his image.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...



God created man in his image, seriously retard this predates Movies.

What a moron


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Yeah but since the first man was a Black man then God is Black. Science and the bible tells us this. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Neanderthals Doomed by Vision-Centered Brains

"*Anatomically modern humans, meanwhile, evolved in Africa*, where the bright light required no extra visual processing, leaving humans free to evolve larger frontal lobes."


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



The first people came from Africa and were descended from apes only if you are an atheist

So make up your mind goofy


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


No stupid. they werent descended from apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor.  The bible itself tells you the first people were Black. Two white people have never produced a Black person.  They cant because they are recessive and Black genes are dominant. Since science tells us the first white person didnt show up until about 8k years ago due to some cruel mutation,  youre out of luck....again.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



What a retard, why do you say that two white people never birthed a black person when your entire argument is that two black people produced white people.

Duh, take your pills


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Because two Black people can produce a white person. You must really hate science if you didnt know that. 

Besides I said it was a mutation that created white people.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



LOL You are a racist piece of shit and creating your own genetic rules based on your fantasies


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Tell you what. You show me a white couple that has produced a child with dark melanated skin. In the meantime I will show you a African couple that has produced a white skinned child that isnt an albino. 

https://nypost.com/2010/07/21/blond-bombshell/


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



You are a racist piece of shit because all you see is color, not the people within


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


I see you get really angry when science and reality kills your racist fantasies.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


You see your deluded science, and I see people.  You will never understand


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Only retarded racists like you think science is deluded. If you see people you would'nt be bragging about being part neanderthal.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Science to you is a working computer game...…………………….


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...


Youre an idiot. A computer game is an practical application of science. What do think is in a computer game? Magic?


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Your brain is a computer game


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



  I know these are new discoveries for you as you go to Google school. But anyone who has read past jr high anthropology or genetics knows the older an area the greater the genetic diversity and language diversity as well.
 It was you who claimed a "genetic bottleneck". Which you got wrong. The genetic bottleneck in humanity occurred among the Sub Saharan African proto-humans. Your ancestors. You didnt know that but you do now 
  And, even knowing that for a liberal today is the only day that ever existed, whatever genetic strengths or weakness whites have they have always had. And it never slowed them down did it?
  30000 to 50000 years is a huge amount of time. Even sibling marriages would, within 30-50000 years result in plenty of diversity.
    Your knowledge is like the google searches you do...a mile wide and an inch deep.

  And whites are doomed? For 30,000 years they have been doomed? LOL Look it isnt just that you dont know genetics. You dont have much common sense. The Bell Curve in action perhaps?
  Whites had a lack of diversity 30,000 years ago..so they are doomed next week!
   Forget this late start on trying to learn on google and work on common sense. Or go back and read my first post on this where i mentioned "founder effect". I even gave you a link so you would learn what it was. Did you go to the link or are you still ignorant of "founder effect". Its not too late to get a little shallow knowledge of this. Try it..learning is fun. And anything you learn of genetics will like double your knowledge...if not your understanding.
Founder Effect


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> We came here from space when God left us here, now that we are leaving God is proven and we are it...….



We were on our way to leaving. Then came the "war on poverty". Now we have as much poverty as we ever had but not much of a space program.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Even your google skills are pretty pitiful. Science tells us no such thing. And evolution certainly doesnt work by "two white people" producing a certain color child.
  You just spent hours googling and claiming white people left Africa 50,000 years ago. And now you have fallen for the hoax of a cave man in La Braña-Arintero Cave in  Cantabrian Mountains of Spain. 
   Yes I know which one. its the one all liberals go to. Well the lkesser well read nes anyhow. And this is a good example of why people like you whose education came from Google searches ares so easily fooled.

Ill leave you stuck in your ignorance..or ill ask you to explain how "science tells us". Either way will be funny.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

[QUOTE="Rosy, post: 21155835, member: 70238]

The first people came from Africa and were descended from apes only if you are an atheist

So make up your mind goofy[/QUOTE]

  I think he is too inarticulate to even know if he is an athiest. But I can tell you I am not an atheist and I dont have any trouble with evolution. 
In this case he right though...I explained some time back to him that blacks and apes have a common ancestor but blacks are not descended from apes. So he can now repeat it by rote.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> No stupid. they werent descended from apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor.  The bible itself tells you the first people were Black. Two white people have never produced a Black person.  They cant because they are recessive and Black genes are dominant. Since science tells us the first white person didnt show up until about 8k years ago due to some cruel mutation,  youre out of luck....again.



  Ok so now I have to explain recessive and dominent? Which have nothing to do with skin color.

 There are eleven genes that affect skin color: TYR, TYRP1, OCA2, SLC45A2, SLC24A5, MC1R, ASIP, and KITLG Almost every one has more than two alleles.

Molecular genetics of human pigmentation diversity

  Google is no education Asclepias. It just makes you look foolish. And no Im not going to explain to you what alleles are...or  epistasis vs classical mendelian inheritance. Get back to your University of Google.


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> What a retard, why do you say that two white people never birthed a black person when your entire argument is that two black people produced white people.



Even for him that was pretty bad


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > We came here from space when God left us here, now that we are leaving God is proven and we are it...….
> ...


If we stay, we die...…………...Thus leaving is the only option


----------



## DOTR (Nov 8, 2018)

Rosy said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...



  I agree. Western peoples have always explored new worlds and built new civilizations. But third worlders have gained a lot of power here since 2008 when one was imposed as president. Their ambition is leveling and socialism...not exploration and advancement. 
   And we no longer have the budget for handouts AND space exploration. Almost 49% of Americans have now been reduced to some form of government check. These are not the kind of people who can withstand the hardships of building new colonies.


----------



## Rosy (Nov 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


There is no hardship, either we leave the Earth or die in the next calamity, it's not whether, but when


----------

