# All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm



## rdean (Jul 18, 2011)

If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.

All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm : Discovery News







"We can now say that, in all probability, there was gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans," said the paper's first author, Richard E. (Ed) Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Complete Neanderthal genome yields insights into human evolution and evidence of interbreeding

Neandertals | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

90%


----------



## rdean (Jul 18, 2011)

There was a times when some thought blacks were "less" than human.  Hilarious.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Heavyweight250 is 100% neanderthal.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 18, 2011)

You mean scientists lied to me when they told me that we all came out of Africa ?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2011)

What happened to the fictional Evolutionary narrative that we all came from Africa?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2011)

Recent African origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

oopsies






Someone is off in the Trillion column.  Is the mDNA wrong?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2011)

Deany posts stuff he doesn't understand then runs away. 

I did that once in 4th Grade, I had to do a homework assignment and cut an article out of the newspaper that morning without reading it on how astronauts spotted an ICMB. The teacher asked my if I knew what an ICBM was and I didn't. She wasn't very nice to me about it (she was a Liberal) and as you can see, it was a day I never forgot


----------



## rdean (Jul 18, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Deany posts stuff he doesn't understand then runs away.
> 
> I did that once in 4th Grade, I had to do a homework assignment and cut *an* article out of the newspaper that morning without reading it on how astronauts spotted an ICMB. The teacher asked my if I knew what an ICBM was and I didn't. She wasn't very nice to me about it (she was a Liberal) and as you can see, it was a day I never forgot



Just stop.

You never made it to the fourth grade.

Besides, it wasn't "one".  It was "three".  For you that's, "One plus One plus One".

Or as you call it, "This many":


----------



## xsited1 (Jul 18, 2011)

rdean said:


> All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm



Is this why only 6% of Scientists are Republican?


----------



## rdean (Jul 18, 2011)

What this means for all those "southern confederate" slave holders who were able to justify slavery because it's OK in the Bible and because they wanted to believe that blacks weren't entirely human.  Turns out blacks are the only ones who are "entirely" human.  That means all they have left is a book written by bronze age people who didn't know to wash after wiping.  A book with Children's fables like "Noah's Ark" and "Samson".


----------



## rdean (Jul 18, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm
> ...



Of course not.  Republicans don't like science.  Why study something you believe is a "faith" if you already have one?  Sorry I had to be the one to explain something so "simple".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2011)

rdean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Deany posts stuff he doesn't understand then runs away.
> ...



 

Right Deany, so are we descended from Africa or not?


----------



## Tank (Jul 18, 2011)

So then Africans are a whole different species then all other humans?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2011)

Wait a second, I've got it!  *AFTER* we migrated from Africa we mated with Neanderthal, amiright? And Africa had a strict "No Neanderthals Allowed"Policy

HAS TO BE IT!

Nothing else fits Deanys facts


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 18, 2011)

Africans are not another species. It just means that after 'man' migrated out of Africa, apparently some cross-breeding occurred with Neandertal. 

Perhaps we came from North Africa (eg, Egypt). Since that fits better with the Creation/Bible story, I'm sure Christians would appreciate that theory. 



> "This confirms recent findings suggesting that the two populations interbred," Labuda was quoted as saying in a press release. His team believes most, if not all, of the interbreeding took place in the Middle East, while modern humans were migrating out of Africa and spreading to other regions.


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 18, 2011)

to add:

Humans: Out of Israel?


> "The Qesem teeth come from a time period between 200,000 to 400,000 years ago when human remains from the Middle East are very scarce," co-author Rolf Quam said in a Binghamton University press release.


----------



## rdean (Jul 18, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> You mean scientists lied to me when they told me that we all came out of Africa ?



"According to our results, the ancestors of Neanderthals and modern humans went their separate ways about 400,000 years ago," said co-author Jim Mullikin, a computational geneticist at the National Human Genome Research Institute.

The new data, however, also supports that Neanderthals and humans encountered each other again around 45,000 to 80,000 years ago in the Middle East, when humans migrating out of Africa likely met Neanderthals who were already living there.

The meeting must not have been too unpleasant, since the researchers believe the interbreeding happened at this place and estimated time.

Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves : Discovery News

They only lied to you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2011)

rdean said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > You mean scientists lied to me when they told me that we all came out of Africa ?
> ...



Humans have been around for 400,000 years?


----------



## Tank (Jul 18, 2011)

However it happened it looks like things worked out better for the ones who left Africa.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 18, 2011)

rdean said:


> If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.
> 
> All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm : Discovery News
> 
> ...



Well, that explains Tank.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 18, 2011)

rdean said:


> If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.
> 
> All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm : Discovery News
> 
> ...


 
Jean Auell already established this in Clan of th eCave Bear!


----------



## Tank (Jul 18, 2011)

rdean said:


> The new data, however, also supports that Neanderthals and humans encountered each other again around 45,000 to 80,000 years ago in the Middle East, when humans migrating out of Africa likely met Neanderthals who were already living there.
> 
> The meeting must not have been too unpleasant, since the researchers believe the interbreeding happened at this place and estimated time.


Or the Africans attacked and raped the others as they still do today.


----------



## rdean (Jul 18, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



But, but, I thought it was only 6,000.

6%


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 18, 2011)

Who cares? This shit is cool!
I'm sure it will give these guys something to talk about.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 18, 2011)

Data for out of Africa still stands.  Since the Sahara crosses the whole continent, the only way new human species can migrate out is up the nile.  

Neanderthals are pretty much modern humans, except for the face.    When modern humans  came out of Africa 10,000 years ago, Neanderthals were pretty quickly competed out.

The interesting thing about this report is that humans and Neanderthals such as Rdean can breed successfully.   This means they were closer to modern humans than previously believed.   Most distant crossbreeds are sterile.  

Since the population pressure was from south to north, that means Neanderthals never went back into Africa after they developed separately from modern humans.


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 18, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> The interesting thing about this report is that humans and Neanderthals such as Rdean can breed successfully.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 18, 2011)

rdean said:


> If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.
> 
> All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm : Discovery News
> 
> ...



Only on this planet.


----------



## rdean (Jul 18, 2011)

Tank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The new data, however, also supports that Neanderthals and humans encountered each other again around 45,000 to 80,000 years ago in the Middle East, when humans migrating out of Africa likely met Neanderthals who were already living there.
> ...



No racism there.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2011)

What explains why Africans won't breed with Neanderthal? Has to be racism!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2011)

rdean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



But having humans around for 400,000 years argues strongly in favor of past, collapsed civilizations! Think of it, we're genetically identical so 400,000 years ago there were people as smart as Joe Biden and Rdean walking the face of the Earth and....er, nevermind


----------



## Tank (Jul 18, 2011)

This also helps to explain was there is so much genetic diversity within the caucasian race and none within the African.


----------



## konradv (Jul 19, 2011)

Tank said:


> This also helps to explain was there is s*o much genetic diversity within the caucasian race *and none within the African.



That fact(in bold) doesn't necessarily prove anything about the individual as proven by the subsequent positioning of a totally false statement after it, as if one made the other true.  Now we have to decide if that's just native ignorance or a political bias.


----------



## manifold (Jul 19, 2011)

Interesting.  So I guess the difference between blacks and whites is more than just skin color afterall.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 19, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> Africans are not another species. It just means that after 'man' migrated out of Africa, apparently some cross-breeding occurred with Neandertal.
> 
> Perhaps we came from North Africa (eg, Egypt). Since that fits better with the Creation/Bible story, I'm sure Christians would appreciate that theory.
> 
> ...



I have heard people from India tell me the first man came from there, people told me he was from Africa and someone else told me Egypt, so I dont know who to believe.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 19, 2011)

Tank said:


> This also helps to explain was there is so much genetic diversity within the caucasian race and none within the African.



Thats not true at all Tank.


----------



## manifold (Jul 19, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> CitizenPained said:
> 
> 
> > Africans are not another species. It just means that after 'man' migrated out of Africa, apparently some cross-breeding occurred with Neandertal.
> ...



psst:  Eqypt is in Africa.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 19, 2011)

manifold said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > CitizenPained said:
> ...



Doh.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 19, 2011)

manifold said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > CitizenPained said:
> ...


Well, sort of. For the purposes of this study Egypt is in Northern Africa, not Sub-Saharan Africa. Apparently Neanderthal genes are in everyone, including Australian aborigines, except those living in Sub-Saharan Africa.


----------



## manifold (Jul 19, 2011)

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Then I guess it's official.  Sub-Saharan Africans are the superior humans and it explains why they've gone on to rule the world.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Tank (Jul 19, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > This also helps to explain was there is so much genetic diversity within the caucasian race and none within the African.
> ...


Sure it is, Cauasians can have blue, brown, green, black eyes and blond, red, black, brown hair.

Africans only have black afros and eyes.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 19, 2011)

Tank said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Tank said:
> ...



Africans look different from all the continent, an African from Somalia has different features than someone from the Congo, and with all the race mixing going on in the US, there are many different features for Black people in the US, some have freckles, green eyes, blue eyes, even red hair sometimes.


----------



## manifold (Jul 19, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Only those infected with neanderthal DNA they caught from interbreeding with whites.


----------



## Tank (Jul 19, 2011)

If they are of mixed race they are not just black


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 19, 2011)

manifold said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Tank said:
> ...


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 19, 2011)

Is _that_ why you don't go back after you've gone black?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 19, 2011)

Tank said:


> If they are of mixed race they are not just black



If you have a grand parent or even a great grand parent of a different race, does that alone quality you as mixed race?


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 19, 2011)

Ohh my!  How does this figure into god and the creationsits, etc?


----------



## Tank (Jul 19, 2011)

If a African does not have just a black afro and eyes, they are of mixed race


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 19, 2011)

Tank said:


> If a African does not have just a black afro and eyes, they are of mixed race



Well that depends where you go, in South Africa and Brazil they have a couple different categories for you if you are not 100% black, but in the US its different, I am half white but have been treated and regarded as just Black my whole life, even when people know my ancestry.


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 19, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > If a African does not have just a black afro and eyes, they are of mixed race
> ...



That's the thing. White people don't go up to you and say, 'So _how_ black are you?' They just treat you like you're black, though lighter skin apparently shields you from some racism.


----------



## manifold (Jul 19, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> That's the thing. White people don't go up to you and say, 'So _how_ black are you?' They just treat you like you're black, though lighter skin apparently shields you from some racism.



I cannot speak from personal experience, but my understanding is there is a lot of bigotry within the black community surrounding 'darkness', and it goes both ways.


I wish I could find a video of an old SNL skit with Garret Morris and a much lighter skinned black guest.  The set-up is a talk show format with Morris hosting.  He asks the guy why there is this misconception that white people are smarter than black people.  And the guy says, well I think that misconception stems from the fact that light skinned blacks are smarter than dark skinned blacks.  You can imagine where it goes from there.  Pretty funny stuff.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 19, 2011)

rdean said:


> If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.
> 
> All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm : Discovery News
> 
> ...



Interesting, and here I thought that evolution proved we were all Africans.....


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 19, 2011)

...We are.


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 19, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Ohh my!  How does this figure into god and the creationsits, etc?



If you stretch out the timeline, pretty well.  

Some early Jewish thinkers said that God had created more than one kind of man, and that Adam was the 967th generation of man. (Yes, that's still rather off, but you can tell they were open to the idea...though if they were living at several hundred years each, that puts first man at 150-300k years ago.) Plus there are midrashim that say that a human week or day is nothing like God's week or day. Kabbalists say that the earth is billions of years old because the Earth goes through cycles of time. Classical, Medieval, and Modern rabbis weren't literalists. A couple of modern rabbis in the Orthodox circles have completely reversed the idea and think evolution is hearsay, but that's a small number.

Should be noted that Jews everywhere are opposed to the teaching of intelligent design in schools.

Not sure how that works out with Christians.


----------



## rdean (Jul 19, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Ohh my!  How does this figure into god and the creationsits, etc?



I was thinking the same thing.

Does that mean black people have more "soul"?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What happened to the fictional Evolutionary narrative that we all came from Africa?



Franky, the specie that gave birth to the Neanderthals came from Africa. Homo originated in Africa, the daughter species of Homo, of which we are but one, continued to evolve after we left Africa.


----------



## manifold (Jul 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > What happened to the fictional Evolutionary narrative that we all came from Africa?
> ...



But didn't continue to evolve in Africa? 

Damn, that's some seriously racist, repugnant shit dude!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Data for out of Africa still stands.  Since the Sahara crosses the whole continent, the only way new human species can migrate out is up the nile.
> 
> Neanderthals are pretty much modern humans, except for the face.    When modern humans  came out of Africa 10,000 years ago, Neanderthals were pretty quickly competed out.
> 
> ...



Since we are speaking of Homo that date back to 400,000 years ago, there were several climatic cycles involving both Africa and Europe. Times when the climate was much more conducive to migrations than at present.

The Neanderthals and Sapiens were not that distant. Would not be surprised if we find that there were other isolated populations, such as the Denizovians, that also left their genetic imprint on us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What explains why Africans won't breed with Neanderthal? Has to be racism!



Something about a large expanse of salt water between Africa and Europe. And the Homo Sapiens developed in Africa, and migrated to Europe. So the Africans and Neanderthal did interbreed. The results just did not go south, but north, east, and west.


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 19, 2011)

manifold said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It's called convergent evolution.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The lack of artifacts of said civilizations argues they did not exist.


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 19, 2011)

There's a debate on what to label neandertal: _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_ or_ Homo neanderthalensis._


----------



## Ravi (Jul 19, 2011)

Does anyone else suspect that our resident racists think that this proves their theory that blacks are stupider than whites?


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Lack of artifacts does not prove there were none. It just proves there are none to be found.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 19, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Does anyone else suspect that our resident racists think that this proves their theory that blacks are stupider than whites?



Those guys would think like that no matter what came up on this subject.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2011)

manifold said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Tell me, Manifold, are you blind? Do all the native Africans south of the Sahara look the same? Of course, the people in Africa continued to evolve, same as those that left.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone else suspect that our resident racists think that this proves their theory that blacks are stupider than whites?
> ...



Have a little pity on them, High Gravity. Somehow, someway, they have to come up with someone they can claim is of lesser intellect than they are. A very difficult proposition, indeed, as is evident from their posts.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Citizen, have a look at the artifacts left by the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and Meso-American civilizations. Consider that we find artifacts left by our ancestors from two million years ago. But no one has presented us with artifacts and evidence of an advanced civilization dating past ten thousand years ago.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> There's a debate on what to label neandertal: _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_ or_ Homo neanderthalensis._



First Cousins?


----------



## manifold (Jul 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Tell me Old Rocks, have you no sense of humor?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2011)

My sense of humor does not stretch to serious denigration of other people that have suffered enough from that sort of thing already.


----------



## manifold (Jul 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> My sense of humor does not stretch to serious denigration of other people that have suffered enough from that sort of thing already.



So no.

Got it.


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> My sense of humor does not stretch to serious denigration of other people that have suffered enough from that sort of thing already.



In that case, I apologize for insinuating that High Gravity had a large dick.


----------



## Tank (Jul 19, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Does anyone else suspect that our resident racists think that this proves their theory that blacks are stupider than whites?


Notice that you are the first on to talk about any difference of racial intelligence.

I don't think any race is "stupider", just all races evolved differently and that our differences go beyond just skin color.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 19, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > My sense of humor does not stretch to serious denigration of other people that have suffered enough from that sort of thing already.
> ...


----------



## Ravi (Jul 19, 2011)

Tank said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone else suspect that our resident racists think that this proves their theory that blacks are stupider than whites?
> ...


 What made you think I was talking about you in particular?

There are several regular posters that are convinced that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites.


----------



## Leweman (Jul 19, 2011)

What any of this have to do with intelligence?  Intelligence should be measured per indivudal.  Does anybody think of people as individuals anymore or does everyone have to belong to a member of a group?


----------



## Tank (Jul 19, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ePILrB11c]&#x202a;The Reality of Human Races&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Tank (Jul 19, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


I didn't think you were talking to me in particular, just figured since you have called me a racist so many times I'd respond.


----------



## rdean (Jul 19, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Actually "convergent evolution" shows up in totally unrelated species who deveilop similair traits to fill an evolutionary niche.







A perfect example is the Fossa which split off from the Mongoose but filled a niche that normally would be held by cats.

Mongoose:






A few other examples:


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 19, 2011)

*Parallel


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 19, 2011)

Tank said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Tank said:
> ...



Actually, you're wrong. There are groups in Africa, such as the Bushmen in Nambia, that are the most genetically diverse in the world.

linkydoo



> One of her collaborators, Muntaser Ibrahim of the University of Khartoum, said indigenous people were eager to help the research. "They would like to know about their past as much as everybody else," he said. "The notion that people in remote areas are not interested in genetics is not true."
> 
> Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.
> 
> Her team looked at 98 African Americans from North Carolina, Baltimore, Chicago and Pittsburgh. The researchers determined that, on average, 71 percent of their genes could be traced to the far-flung African linguistic group Niger-Kordofanian, 8 percent to other African groups and 13 percent to Europe, with a smattering of genetic markers pointing to other places on the globe.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 20, 2011)

It would be interesting to see a genetic map of many of the bigots on this board. Bet there would be some real surprises.


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 20, 2011)

Just a few chromosomes short of a full genome is all.


----------



## editec (Jul 20, 2011)

*White Civilization* --So easy even a CAVEMAN can do it.


----------



## manifold (Jul 20, 2011)

editec said:


> *White Civilization* --So easy even a CAVEMAN can do it.



Interesting post in a thread discussing Sub-Saharan Africans, for whom it apparently wasn't so easy.  Did you plan that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 20, 2011)

rdean said:


> There was a times when some thought blacks were "less" than human.  Hilarious.



If blacks all lack the neanderthal gene then they are obviously less diverse than non blacks, and thus, by the irrefutable logic of left wing science, less than human.


----------



## Tank (Jul 20, 2011)

editec said:


> *White Civilization* --So easy even a CAVEMAN can do it.


But not a black man can do it


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 20, 2011)

rdean said:


> What this means for all those "southern confederate" slave holders who were able to justify slavery because it's OK in the Bible and because they wanted to believe that blacks weren't entirely human.  Turns out blacks are the only ones who are "entirely" human.  That means all they have left is a book written by bronze age people who didn't know to wash after wiping.  A book with Children's fables like "Noah's Ark" and "Samson".



Why don't you invent a time machine and go back to ask them.

Wait, you can't, time machines can only go back to the point where they first existed, not past that point. Unless our current understanding of physics is wrong, then you could ask them, and get laughed at because that was not the actual justification for slavery, that was a rationalization. The justification was that it was economically feasible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 20, 2011)

rdean said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > You mean scientists lied to me when they told me that we all came out of Africa ?
> ...



Actually, you are again misinterpreting a single fact and not putting it into the context of everything we know. The truth is our most recent common ancestor was lived 2000 years ago in the Middle East. Everyone currently living on Earth is descended from that person, which means we are all cousins.

The fact that our European ancestors intermingled with Neanderthals at some point is actually just a bit of trivia, because everyone currently alive would have some of that DNA mixed in unless they somehow managed to keep their lineage completely pure. That is as close to being impossible as anything I can think of when we start talking about genetics and evolution.

I am not surprised you are confused since you do not understand evolution at all, you just believe in it.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 20, 2011)

rdean said:


> There was a times when some thought blacks were "less" than human.  Hilarious.



Like Darwin, and all those who touted evolution. I embrace my Neanderthal roots. Clever folks, who most likely invented art, the fire bow, the arrow, spear head and cooking. Ware would we be without them ?


----------



## rdean (Jul 20, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > There was a times when some thought blacks were "less" than human.  Hilarious.
> ...



You might, for once, want to think this through.

There started out a finite pool of humans with all the "human" genes in the world.  A small group of them broke off from the main group and headed north.  Just the fact that they are a small group from a much larger group makes them less genetically diverse.  They mated with Neanderthals.  Only about 2% of their genes actually entered the human gene pool.  Even with that small addition,* the main group*, from where Africans are descended, were much, much more diverse genetically. 

Look at lions and tigers.  They have diverged genetically.  Their offspring is usually sterile.  But occasionally, they do have fertile offspring.  Now say that "liger" mated with a lion.  Now the offspring has only 25% of tiger genes and 75% lion.  How many generations before the percentage drops to 2%?  At some point, everyone would have some consistent percentage.  Think about why.

With Neanderthals and humans diverging for 400,000 years, you can bet their situation was very similar to lions and tigers.

I really am shocked how little right wingers know about anything.  Genetics and evolution is taught in high school, at least in the high school I went to.  I know it's not allowed in many southern high schools.  Because in those schools, "God did it".


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 20, 2011)

rdean said:


> What this means for all those "southern confederate" slave holders who were able to justify slavery because it's OK in the Bible and because they wanted to believe that blacks weren't entirely human.  Turns out blacks are the only ones who are "entirely" human.  That means all they have left is a book written by bronze age people who didn't know to wash after wiping.  A book with Children's fables like "Noah's Ark" and "Samson".



Ignorant. Slavery is also acceptable in Islam, and was practiced by all Native American tribes as well as among the tribes in Africa who provided black slaves to those Confederates you blather on about, not to mention the fact that slavery is also practiced among the illegals you love so much from south of the border.


----------



## rdean (Jul 20, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > There was a times when some thought blacks were "less" than human.  Hilarious.
> ...



Because Africans didn't have those things?


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 20, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Can you provide a link to a wild example of a ligar ?

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers2.html


----------



## rdean (Jul 20, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > What this means for all those "southern confederate" slave holders who were able to justify slavery because it's OK in the Bible and because they wanted to believe that blacks weren't entirely human.  Turns out blacks are the only ones who are "entirely" human.  That means all they have left is a book written by bronze age people who didn't know to wash after wiping.  A book with Children's fables like "Noah's Ark" and "Samson".
> ...



Is that why you defend slavery?


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 20, 2011)

rdean said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Never did defend slavery. You still have not produced a wild example of a lion/tiger hybrid. Two animals who's habitat barely if at all touches. As to what the primitive Africans had, ?they had  little bit of all of it. All primitive cultures had spears, many  bows and arrows As well as slings an atl-atl's. All primitive cultures had art and cooking, and it is believed they were all invented and discovered concurrently by the various primitive people you ignorant turd ball. Now, can you pleas post an example of the hybrid animal ? it was a big part of your point.


----------



## rdean (Jul 20, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Wild?  I think it's explained pretty well here.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HgW86TwF_o&feature=related]&#x202a;The Truth about Ligers&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]

I don't agree with everything they have to say, but it's mostly correct.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 20, 2011)

No. It is not. Can they make a hybrid yes. Does it happen in the wild ? no.

Cross-breeding between Cats of Different Species

Rare, not likely, not documented. Nice to try and switch the subject there.


----------



## Tank (Jul 20, 2011)

rdean said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


They still do:


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CitizenPained said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







We find stone implements from 2 million years ago.  The Roman and earlier artifacts are uncommon (some are rare) and look around you.  How much of our modern artifacts will be around in 2,000 years?  Not too many.  The lack of artifacts only shows that none have been found that can be traced to an older civilization.  The epic of Gilgamesh and other religious tracts all speak of a great flood and that could only have happened 5,000 years before the beginning of modern civilization as we know it.  That means there was a society around long enough to develop BEFORE the flood to develop a primordial memory.


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...





rdeans view of the world

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLdk2C25Z14]&#x202a;Monty Python&#39;s The Meaning of Life- A Tiger? In Africa?&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > There was a times when some thought blacks were "less" than human.  Hilarious.
> ...


Except....homo sapiens are humans, Neanderthals, not so much, being considered a sub-species.

If you want to argue that blacks are the only "pure" humans you might have a point.

Or you can continue to pretend what you are pretending.


----------



## Tank (Jul 20, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Except....homo sapiens are humans, Neanderthals, not so much, being considered a sub-species.


So, there are different species of humans that can have off spring?



Ravi said:


> If you want to argue that blacks are the only "pure" humans you might have a point.


Does blacks being "the only pure humans" make the other races a "sub-species"?

See you later Ravi


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2011)

Tank said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Except....homo sapiens are humans, Neanderthals, not so much, being considered a sub-species.
> ...


No, being Neanderthal does. 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## Tank (Jul 20, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


The OP says that all other races other then Africans are part Neanderthal.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2011)

Tank said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Tank said:
> ...


And?


----------



## Tank (Jul 20, 2011)

Black Africans and other races are sub-species.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 20, 2011)

rdean said:


> You might, for once, want to think this through.



What makes you think I am the one that has not thought this through?



rdean said:


> There started out a finite pool of humans with all the "human" genes in the world.  A small group of them broke off from the main group and headed north.  Just the fact that they are a small group from a much larger group makes them less genetically diverse.  They mated with Neanderthals.  Only about 2% of their genes actually entered the human gene pool.  Even with that small addition,* the main group*, from where Africans are descended, were much, much more diverse genetically.



What makes you believe that?

That "small group" that went north became the population of most of the world. They are now so genetically diverse that there are multiple genetic strains, and the more diverse the strains that go into a person, the better their health and intelligence, they also tend to be better looking, in my opinion.



rdean said:


> Look at lions and tigers.  They have diverged genetically.  Their offspring is usually sterile.  But occasionally, they do have fertile offspring.  Now say that "liger" mated with a lion.  Now the offspring has only 25% of tiger genes and 75% lion.  How many generations before the percentage drops to 2%?  At some point, everyone would have some consistent percentage.  Think about why.



You really have no idea how genetics work, do you. 

The further back we go the more ancestors any organism that reproduces through sex will have. It does not take very long before a single organism has more ancestors than ever actually lived. That means that every species is inter related, and that applies to humans. Every one of us is related to everyone else.



rdean said:


> With Neanderthals and humans diverging for 400,000 years, you can bet their situation was very similar to lions and tigers.



Actually, the theory is that we merged with neanderthals about 400,000 years ago. We must have been fairly closely related if we were mutually fertile, which means that the divergence would not have been that much further in the past. We were not separate species, anymore than lions and tigers are. 



rdean said:


> I really am shocked how little right wingers know about anything.  Genetics and evolution is taught in high school, at least in the high school I went to.  I know it's not allowed in many southern high schools.  Because in those schools, "God did it".



You obviously never paid any attention to what they taught in high school, since you tried to argue with me that Darwin did not understand that all life on Earth evolved from simple lifeforms. Yet you continue to try to argue with this ignorant right winger about science, and continually get your idiocy shoved down your throat.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 20, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Who considers them a sub species? 

I am not arguing that anyone is a pure human, I am mocking rdeans's understanding of science in general and genetics in particular. If you want me to mock yours as well feel free to keep trying to tell me I am off base in my assertions.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2011)

Tank said:


> Black Africans and other races are sub-species.


 Not according to this "evidence."


----------



## Tank (Jul 20, 2011)

Hey Ravi,

Did you not just say, "that blacks are the only "pure" humans" and that Neanderthals are "considered a sub-species"?

You and you're buddy rdean thought it would be funny to call white people part Neanderthals, not realizing that makes blacks and whites sub-speices.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 20, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CitizenPained said:
> ...



Total bullshit, Walleyes. Think Coke bottles. Concrete bridges and dams. Stainless steel. Plastic. The Great Wall of China.

The Biblical flood is certainly a rewrite of the Epic. And that most probably described the infilling of the Black Sea.


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Yes, and when did that happen?  Glass coke bottles?  Turned to sand in 1000 years. Plastic?  UV radiation turns them into powder within 1000 years.  Great wall of China will probably not last as long as the Pyramids (which are stone) but both will outlast the modern materials that our society is based on.  Stainless steel still rusts or didn't you know that?

Concrete bridges and dams will fracture, collapse, and disappear within 1,000 years.  Our cement is not nearly as good as the Romans cement is.
This is the Livingston House in Detroit, one of the great homes of the era.  How much more time do you think it has?


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 21, 2011)

So _that's_ what Sheen meant when he said he had tiger blood and Adonis DNA.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 21, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Roman concrete better than ours? You had best show some evidence for that, Walleyes. Coke bottles will not devitrify in only 1000 years, and there are thousands of tons of plastic buried in land fills. And you failed utterly to address stainless steel artifacts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Ever take a look at the Colosseum? Roman roads? There are roads in Europe that were built 2000 years ago that are in better shape than ones built 10 years ago in this country.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 21, 2011)

And the shoddy constructed one during Roman times have disappeared. 

Sorry, but you will have to show me the chemistry of how Roman concrete exceeds what we use for major projects.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 21, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> Africans are not another species. It just means that after 'man' migrated out of Africa, apparently some cross-breeding occurred with Neandertal.
> 
> Perhaps we came from North Africa (eg, Egypt). Since that fits better with the Creation/Bible story, I'm sure Christians would appreciate that theory.
> 
> ...



Ever herd of the human genome project ?


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.
> ...


Still rather believe in fiction, I see.


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Stainless steel rusts or didn't you catch that part?  Glass in a landfill will devitrify rather quickly, probably faster then if it was on the surface.  Look at a bottle that's been in the dirt for a while.  See that whitish coloring on the surface?  That's the glass beginning to break down.  After enough time has passed it will fall apart and you will be left with a white powder as the glass devolves back into its constituents.

Here's a little article on Roman concrete and yes it was significantly better then the concrete we use today.  They were able to build mile long arched aqueducts without having to use expansion joints.  Try doing that with modern cement, ain't gonna happen.
Mayan cement was much better then ours as well.

See you need to read some history my friend.  It's amazing what you can learn when you crack a book.





"Two thousand years ago the Roman Empire built concrete structures that still look as though the concrete was just poured. Modern concrete structures not even a century old are crumbling and many of them are already in ruins. What is the difference between the concrete the Romans used compared with modern Portland cement based concrete?

The Roman engineers did not have any thing resembling modern Portland cement that was invented by an English mason in 1824. It was literally something he cooked up on his wife's kitchen stove. It was made from a mixture of clay and limestone that was ground into a fine powder. The resulting cement was in the form of a clinker that had to be ground so fine that it would pass through a mesh that water would not.

Roman cement was made from two simple ingredients that were available in abundance: limestone and volcanic ash. There are plenty of volcanoes in Italy especially around Naples and Rome to supply the ash. Limestone was plentiful in the Dolomites a mountain range making up the backbone of Italy.

The most important ingredient was a good quality of white limestone that the Romans subjected to a heating process that drove of carbon dioxide leaving behind calcium oxide. This is familiar as Quick Lime. When it is added to water the heat generated by a chemical reaction is enough to bring the water to the boiling point. It also leaves behind a product called hydrated lime that was stored in amphora until use. This material mixed with clean river sand produces mortar used to set stones and brick."

Roman Concrete Compared to Modern Concrete - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> And the shoddy constructed one during Roman times have disappeared.
> 
> Sorry, but you will have to show me the chemistry of how Roman concrete exceeds what we use for major projects.






The best construction the Romans used looks like they were poured yesterday.  The Pantheon is 2038 years old and has withstood numerous earthquakes without damage.  There are harbor works in Naples that likewise look like modern construction they are in such good shape.

Here are some pictures of it.  Show us a picture of any cement building you wish that is more than 75 years old.


----------



## yidnar (Jul 21, 2011)

rdean said:


> There was a times when some thought blacks were "less" than human.  Hilarious.


 you are absolutely correct humans are descended from neanderthal it's a proven fact.and blacks are descended from homo erectus this also a proven fact.EVER SEEN A GRAPHIC OF HOMO ERECTUS???? YOU JUST STEPPED KNEE DEEP INTO SOME SHIT YOU DON"T WANT TO STEP INTO HA HA HA!!!!


----------



## editec (Jul 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CitizenPained said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 
No longer true.



> At first glance, the fox on the surface of the limestone pillar appears to be a trick of the bright sunlight. But as I move closer to the large, T-shaped megalith, I find it is carved with an improbable menagerie. A bull and a crane join the fox in an animal parade etched across the surface of the pillar, one of dozens erected by* early Neolithic people at Göbekli Tepe in southeastern Turkey.* The press here is fond of calling the site "the Turkish Stonehenge," but the comparison hardly does justice to this 25-acre arrangement of at least seven stone circles. *The first structures at Göbekli Tepe were built as early as 10,000 B.C.,* predating their famous British counterpart by about 7,000 years.


 
source

This discovery has really turned pretty much every theory we had about the development of civilization on its head, folks.

These temples appear to be the vestages of some kind of highly complex HUNTER GATHERER society that predates every historical agricultural society we have as yet discovered.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 21, 2011)

Multiply your grandparents by two and that by two and do that several times and soon we are all related somewhere or another.  

I'm not sure what to make of this work by Lindsay, but like so many things it matters not to me, I am a weird mix and our children even more complicated but so what, it is what you do in life and how you live that matters all the rest is BS. But then I think suppose instead I looked more like dad and our name was more ethnic specific, would it have mattered then? Yes, I think it would have. I am old enough to have seen a more open hatred of the other, PC has changed that in a subtle but not good manner for some. Sad world that we only exist in a brief moment - we should all be glad to just see the sky. 

"The figures for Black admixture are possibly discouraging to White nationalists, but considering that 90% of them are Nordicists anyway, maybe not..."  see chart down page.  A Little Black In All of Us | Robert Lindsay


And this too: "Combine the genetic influences on personality with the political tendencies of different personality types, and the idea that genetics shapes political tendencies seems very plausible indeed. All of the big five personality traits are highly heritable (Journal of Research in Personality, vol 32, p 431), with several studies suggesting that around half of the variation in openness scores is a result of genetic differences."  ingentaconnect Heritabilities of Common and Measure-Specific Components of the B...


----------



## rdean (Jul 21, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > You might, for once, want to think this through.
> ...



Species that evolved independently from each other don't "merge".

And you have the nerve to question my education.  Hilarious.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 21, 2011)

rdean said:


> If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.
> 
> All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm : Discovery News
> 
> ...



I'm sure this has been listed.

Didn't we all come from Africa?  [Or was it 98%]

If I recall, research from last year says our genes thin out the further we get from Africa.

so this all makes less and less sense.

I


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 21, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I do not question your education, I mock its effectiveness.

What do you think interbreeding is? Why does the article you linked to say that neanderthals were absorbed into the homo sapiens bloodline if we did not merge?


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 21, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



This describes rdean, as well as many who post here pretty well.

Pseudointellectual

`Pseudointellectual` is a pejorative term used to describe someone who engages in false intellectualism or is intellectually dishonest. The term is often, though not always, used to describe one who regularly critiques the work of professionals, while lacking the requisite background knowledge 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudointel


----------



## rdean (Jul 21, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



400,000 to 800,000 years ago, Neanderthals and humans diverged.  They remained independent populations with zero contact up to around 30,000 years ago when humans once again started migrating from Africa.

It's explained in the very first article  I posted.

I'm not going to make fun of your reading ability or lack of knowledge of anything worthwhile because it would be mean.  It would be like making fun of Stan Laural.


----------



## rdean (Jul 21, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



It's one thing for species, like lions and tigers, or donkey, zebras and horses, to "merge when it hasn't been that long since they diverged.

It's something else entirely for an ostrich and a kangaroo to "merge".  That's about as likely as you having a GED.


----------



## rdean (Jul 21, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > You might, for once, want to think this through.
> ...



Prove that he did.  Darwin's entire theory was divergent evolution.  Not that we evolved from single celled animals.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 21, 2011)

rdean said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Lions and tigers have never merged in the wild. Zebras and horses have never merged in the wild. Horses and donkeys have never merged in the wild. Its pointless to use them as an example of anything. Various species of the painted turtle have as well as some frogs  lizards and some snakes. It is still vary rare except among the painted turtles. I cant help it if the only knowledge you have is what is available to you by Google. I do understand that your frustration comes from getting your little ego smashed when it is pointed out that you are just a tiny little lib hack. You started this thread as a political statement, and you ended up looking stupid so now you have to take it personally. I pity you, you sad little thing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 21, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



That is not what happened. Let me explain this, again.

From your link:



> *The ancestors of Neanderthals left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000  years ago. *They evolved over the millennia mostly in what are now  France, Spain, Germany and Russia. *They went extinct, or were simply  absorbed into the modern human population, about 30,000 years ago.*


You can read that paragraph 10,000 times and not come up with your wild, and unsubstantiated, claim that Neanderthals and humans did not interbreed until 30,000 years ago.

Here is what the article you posted actually says.



> "This confirms recent findings suggesting that the two populations   interbred," Labuda was quoted as saying in a press release. *His team  believes most, if not all, of the interbreeding took place in the Middle  East, while modern humans were migrating out of Africa and spreading to  other regions*.


For the reading comprehension challenged, that means that the interbreeding occurred over a long period of time that encompassed the entirety of human migration, unless you think that occurred in less than 30,000 years. If you do, you are the one here who believes in magical creation.

That means that, once again, a right wing idiot who does not believe in education or evolution has once again proven that he understands both better than the self proclaimed expert.

Is this a picture of yourself you posted?


----------



## Tank (Jul 21, 2011)

Now rdean doesn't want to "celebrate diversity" anymore


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 21, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> You mean scientists lied to me when they told me that we all came out of Africa ?


Everyone knows we came from the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago and Eve was made from a rib.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 21, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Do you really want to embarrass yourself again?



> In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[15] Charles Darwin  addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may  have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and  phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a  protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more  complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such  matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have  been the case before living creatures were formed."[16]  In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the  origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.



Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at that, he understood more than you thought.

An Origin of the Species was specifically written to explain how species adapted to fill specific geographical niches, so it obviously discussed divergent evolution. That does not make it all of his theory.

As usual, you know less about this than the average 5th grader in Arkansas or Tennessee, yet you feel so superior to them and their parents.


----------



## rdean (Jul 21, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



From your link:

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[15] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[16] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

That is not a "theory", that is a "musing".  Get it?  "Suggesting" is not a theory.  Darwin had "proof" of evolution which is why the "Theory of Evolution" really is a scientific theory.

Also, he was referring to Aristotle's idea of Spontaneous generation which had been around since about 300 BC.  

It's something like, "Spontaneously, creatures can be created by nature from surrounding material".  I don't know the exact words but that's close.  Aristotle was talking about fully formed creatures, not single celled animals, springing from river mud.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 21, 2011)

Life&#8217;s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com


A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn&#8217;t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

&#8220;It&#8217;s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,&#8221; said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.
<more>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 21, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Do you understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? Darwin did, and he was musing on why there is no evidence of chemicals forming complex organic chains and becoming living organisms in nature. His musing was that life consumed those chemicals, leaving no evidence of abiogenesis. He nonetheless believed that life began in a primordial soup, and that all life on Earth is descending from that first life form.

Darwin correctly separated abiogenesis and evolution because he could support one with evidence, and merely thought the other was reasonable. Many scientists have been working to prove that Darwin was correct about abiogenesis also, and all have, so far, failed.

He did, however, lay the basics for the evolution from simple to complex.

Tell me something, why  is it that a man who believes in God is defending evolution and Darwin to an atheist? Are you so completely unable to admit that you are wrong that you are willing to argue that God exists simply to prove me wrong?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 22, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> For the reading comprehension challenged, that means that the interbreeding occurred over a long period of time that encompassed the entirety of human migration





> Neanderthals, who left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago, evolved in what is now mainly France, Spain, Germany and Russia, and are thought to have survived until about 30,000 years ago.
> 
> Early modern humans left Africa about 80,000 to 50,000 years ago.



Modern humans carry Neanderthal DNA - UPI.com

So the window is between 30,000 and 80,000 years ago, not the entirety of human migration.


----------



## editec (Jul 22, 2011)

Being WHITE -- _So _easy, even a _caveman_ can do it.

Gee, this thread is fun!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Does anyone else suspect that our resident racists think that this proves their theory that blacks are stupider than whites?



I need a comprehensive list. I know William Joyce , who else is racist?


----------



## sparky (Jul 22, 2011)

ya can dress 'em up, butcha can't post 'em anywhere....

~S~


----------



## rdean (Jul 22, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Like I said, "he was referring to Aristotle's idea of Spontaneous generation which had been around since about 300 BC".

I'm not responding to you anymore on this thread because you aren't making sense.  I have no mystical nor occult beliefs.  Not one.  I have no belief in anything supernatural.  In fact it's laughable to me.  So I'm not sure what you are accusing me of.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 22, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > For the reading comprehension challenged, that means that the interbreeding occurred over a long period of time that encompassed the entirety of human migration
> ...



Ware did they get Neanderthal DNA ?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 22, 2011)

Fossils.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 22, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Fossils.



Here is some stuff on what you speak of. The nitty gritty of it all fails to interest me enough to read it all. I was always under the assumption that the DNA would degrade and not be testable. I will read this all tomorrow. I just woke up and dont feel like working the brain to much. Must be my inner neanderthal coming out.




http://www.454.com/downloads/news-events/mtDNANeandertalarticle.pdf


----------



## Ravi (Jul 22, 2011)

It does degrade but it can last for thousands of years, depending on how well preserved the bones are....


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 22, 2011)

Ravi said:


> It does degrade but it can last for thousands of years, depending on how well preserved the bones are....



Wonder if they have done any on Otsi. He wasn't a neanderthal. I know that the food foung in his gut, and pollen on his clothes was viable. Neet stuff, and I have no shame for having cave man DNA. If you want to see some real cool shit, you should look into there tools. They had an appreciation for fine tools, and I dont think they get enough credit for there ingenuity or creativity.


----------



## konradv (Jul 22, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > It does degrade but it can last for thousands of years, depending on how well preserved the bones are....
> ...



Otzi is too recent to be a Neanderthal, being from about 3,300 BCE.  While Europe at the time was still a totally wild and uncivilized place, civilization was beginning to take hold in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Ötzi the Iceman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 22, 2011)

konradv said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I know Otzi (thanks for correcting the spelling) was not a neanderthal. I was just wondering if anything new has come from studying his body. There are also the body's they pull from the peat bogs in England and Europe. I know they are young, just wondering if they have done any DNA stuff with them.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 22, 2011)

We have bog people, too.


> Since its discovery in 1982, this small, peat-bottomed pond situated roughly between Cape Canaveral and Disney World in east-central Florida has offered up no fewer than 168 burials. Unlike their European counterparts, these long-dead individuals have no skin remaining; they are skeletons. But they are otherwise so well-preserved that, when unearthed, over half of them still contained brainsbrains that once held the thoughts and emotions of a prehistoric people.



NOVA | America's Bog People


----------



## konradv (Jul 22, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Momanohedhunter said:
> ...



Sorry, I read "wasn't he" instead of "he wasn't".  I guess the lack of a ? should have given me a clue!!!


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 22, 2011)

konradv said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Meh, I am not known for my proper use of syntax and spellin' words. My bad !


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 22, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > For the reading comprehension challenged, that means that the interbreeding occurred over a long period of time that encompassed the entirety of human migration
> ...



What the fuck?

Is everyone having trouble reading just because I am arguing in favor of something left wingers think right wingers do not understand?

If modern humans left Africa 80,000 years ago, a date which has been disputed, and interbred with Neanderthals from that time until the disappeared, that was the entirety of human migration because, by that point in time, we had effectively reached everywhere we were going to reach. There were other waves of migration that occurred after that, but those were just humans replacing other humans.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 22, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I am sorry if I am talking above your comprehension level.

Spontaneous generation had been disproved 200 years before Darwin, why would he feel a need to address it?

You are trying to argue that we interbred with Neanderthals after they disappeared. How is that not a mystical or magical belief?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 22, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Perhaps you should learn to be more precise. 



> Using projected rates of genetic mutation and data from the fossil record, the researchers suggest that the interbreeding happened about 60,000 years ago in the eastern Mediterranean and, more recently, about 45,000 years ago in eastern Asia. Those two events happened after the first H. sapiens had migrated out of Africa, says Long. His group didn't find evidence of interbreeding in the genomes of the modern African people included in the study.
> 
> The researchers suggest that the population from the first interbreeding went on to migrate to Europe, Asia and North America. Then the second interbreeding with an archaic population in eastern Asia further altered the genetic makeup of people in Oceania.


Neanderthals may have interbred with humans : Nature News


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 22, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Still does not change the fact that it occurred throughout the entire history of human migration.


----------



## rdean (Jul 22, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The Microbial World :: A look at all things small

 Francesco Redi in 1668 with a classic experiment. Redi suspected that flies landing on the meat laid eggs that eventually grew into maggots. To test this idea he devised the experiment shown in Figure 1-20. Here he used three pieces of meat. One piece of meat was placed under a piece of paper. The flies could not lay eggs onto the meat and no maggots developed. The second piece was left in the open air, resulting in maggots. In the final test, a third piece of meat was overlaid with cheesecloth. The flies were able to lay the eggs into the cheesecloth and when this was removed no maggots developed. However, if the cheesecloth containing the eggs was placed on a fresh piece of meat, maggots developed, showing it was the eggs that "caused" flies and not spontaneous generation. This helped to end the debate about spontaneous generation for large organisms.* However, spontaneous generation was so seductive a concept that even Redi believed it was possible in other circumstances.*

------------------------------
Aristotle's idea of Spontaneous generation was actually put to bed by Louis Pasteur, a contemporary of Charles Darwin.  So unless Charles Darwin lived for hundreds of years, you might reconsider your false statement.

Oops.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 22, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Really? You claimed earlier that this didn't happen until humans migrated as far as they could get.

And yet no human remains have been found in North or South America that date back that far.


----------



## Tank (Jul 22, 2011)

Does all this make blacks, the missing link?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 22, 2011)

No. Since they are the only pure humans, apparently.


----------



## Tank (Jul 22, 2011)

Tank said:


> Does all this make blacks, the missing link?





Ravi said:


> No. Since they are the only pure humans, apparently.



I don't think the link is missing, the link is still alive in Africa.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 22, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I might, if you could prove me wrong.

Spontaneous Generation

Unless Darwin was born hundreds of years earlier than he was, or he was a complete ignoramus, he knew spontaneous regeneration was not possible. Just because some other people did not believe this does not mean it was not a scientific fact.

Like I keep telling you, I do not mock your education, I mock the obvious fact that it had no affect on you. I can find people that still write about the Earth being flat, that does not mean that scientists believe that. If science was not a mystical belief system to you you would understand that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 22, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No I did not. I pointed out that by 30,000 years ago we had effectively populated the entire planet, including North and South America.

Human migration was driven by population pressure, and the people on the forefront of it were able to move into lands that were unknown to humans. At some point, somewhere around 45,000 years ago humans had expanded to everyplace we could inhabit. Migration after point  was different because it had to kill people that were already there. 

Don't misunderstand me, it still occurred, but the result was not us expanding into new territories, it was war.


----------



## rdean (Jul 22, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



From your own article:

By 1860, the debate had become so heated that the Paris Academy of Sciences offered a prize for any experiments that would help resolve this conflict. The prize was claimed in 1864 by Louis Pasteur, as he published the results of an experiment he did to disproved spontaneous generation in these microscopic organisms.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 23, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



What is your point? Are you aware that there is currently a prize out there for proving evolution? Does that mean that scientists do not believe it?


----------



## editec (Jul 23, 2011)

Tank said:


> Does all this make blacks, the missing link?


 
Racism -- So easy even a _White man_ can do it!​ 
_God!_ This thread is a blast.

Kudo to whomsoever started it.


----------



## yidnar (Jul 24, 2011)

yidnar said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > There was a times when some thought blacks were "less" than human.  Hilarious.
> ...


 here's a picture of your ancestor LADIES AND GENTLE MEN R DEANS GRANDFATHER!!!


----------



## yidnar (Jul 24, 2011)

yidnar said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


----------



## Tank (Jul 24, 2011)

editec said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > Does all this make blacks, the missing link?
> ...


Even if it's true, I would still be a racist?

Anyways, it seems I'm not alone:

are blacks the missing link - Google Search


----------



## whitehall (Jul 24, 2011)

rdean said:


> There was a times when some thought blacks were "less" than human.  Hilarious.



Be careful what can 'O worms you open dean. Actually it was the democrat party that subscribed to that theory well up to modern times. Al Gore's father for instance.


----------



## Tank (Jul 25, 2011)

http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap1.html


----------



## yidnar (Jul 25, 2011)

yidnar said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> > yidnar said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 28, 2011)

Well, for sure, it is apparent that Yid has not evolved.


----------



## yidnar (Jul 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, for sure, it is apparent that Yid has not evolved.



can't stand the truth can you


----------



## theliq (Jul 28, 2011)

that the last remnants of Neandertals (sic) were on the Iberian penninsular and mixed with homo-erectus, I'm sure there was a study on bones found there and it had both dna!!??


CitizenPained said:


> Africans are not another species. It just means that after 'man' migrated out of Africa, apparently some cross-breeding occurred with Neandertal.
> 
> Perhaps we came from North Africa (eg, Egypt). Since that fits better with the Creation/Bible story, I'm sure Christians would appreciate that theory.
> 
> ...


----------



## idb (Jul 28, 2011)

Is that why there's so much nit-picking on this forum?


----------



## eots (Jul 28, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm
> ...



because if you shake any tree a few scientist Will fall out of it... Republicans are big Idea guys and... _deciders_.. a rarer breed...if A Republican needs a scientist, he will seek one on the open market for hire, delegate a task and expect results or he will cut funding or fire the little lefty egg head...fueling a competitive,profit driven and result orientated scientific research environment.....go USA !!


----------



## konradv (Jul 28, 2011)

eots said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



That's how you get shitty science.  Profit-driven science is fine in it's place, but what of important questions that have little or no profit potential, at least in the short term?  They just don't get done and the basic reasearch that profit-driven research depends on, languishes.  Drug companies, for example, like to talk about all the money they spend on research, but fail to point out all the free basic research they depend on, paid for by us, the taxpayers.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 28, 2011)

Only 6% of Neanderthal's were scientists.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 28, 2011)

rdean said:


> What this means for all those "southern confederate" slave holders who were able to justify slavery because it's OK in the Bible and because they wanted to believe that blacks weren't entirely human.  Turns out blacks are the only ones who are "entirely" human.  That means all they have left is a book written by bronze age people who didn't know to wash after wiping.  A book with Children's fables like "Noah's Ark" and "Samson".



This thread would have been equally placed in the race sub- forum


----------

