Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    talk.origins    |    Evolution versus creationism (sometimes    |    142,602 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 142,600 of 142,602    |
|    JTEM to RonO    |
|    Re: Neanderthal hybridization events inv    |
|    27 Feb 26 11:37:44    |
      From: jtem01@gmail.com              On 2/27/26 10:02 AM, RonO wrote:       > On 2/26/2026 9:09 PM, JTEM wrote:       >>       >> I originally read the subject line and thought you meant NEANDERTHAL       >> women, and thought: "NO! No, no, no, no, no! it was Neanderthal MEN!"       >>       >> On 2/26/26 9:15 PM, RonO wrote:       >>       >>> They have the claim that African humans interbred with Neanderthals       >>> (between 250,000 and 500,000 years ago) and that more of the African       >>> X chromosome got integrated into the Neanderthal population at that       >>> time indicating that the transfer was from females.       >>       >> There's another even simpler way to interpret things: It happened the       >> other way around!       >>       >> The DNA flowed from Eurasia into Africa...              > That is known to be wrong because most of the Neanderthal DNA did not       > make it into Africa.              The problem is that human evolution is intensely complicated and we know       that there was a Eurasian migration into Africa. We know it.              The LM3/Chromosome 11 insert is far, Far, FAR older than any       "Mitochondrial Eve," BILLIONS of people are walking around carrying       it on their Chromosome 11, where it jumped to 8 hundred gazillion       years ago, and it's Eurasian in Origins.              Well. BASED ON HOME THESE THINGS ARE DETERMINED it's Eurasian. BASED       ON EVERYTHING CLAIMED ABOUT DNA IN ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES it's an       Eurasian mtDNA line, it originates in Asia and it was carried into       Africa, where it appears at a significantly reduced frequency...              "Out of Africa" is really only useful post Toba.              I mean, "Out of Africa" happened but relatively recently. There were       severe "Climate Catastrophes," Toba being the worst (by far) and Africa       was well suited to survive. Europe wasn't. Sundaland was Ground Zero       in the case of Toba!              That was the "Eye of the Needle" that all of so called "Modern" DNA       passed through. Doesn't matter what human DNA looked like even 10       seconds before that, Toba filtered most of it out... nearly all of       it.              So, I heavily suspect that what you're seeing here is the filter of       time coupled to population dynamics... interbreeding... this "Modern"       DNA is Eurasian.              > Only the parts that look like they came from       > Africa around 250,000 years ago.              The problem is, it doesn't look like that. There's no 250k year old       African DNA. None.              DNA sequencing is excellent at telling us WHAT the DNA looks like.       But it can't and doesn't tell us how it got that way. It's pure       conjecture predicated on bias... a-priori assumptions.              Everything is predicated on itself. They ASSUME so called moderns       originated in Africa -- more or less falling out of the sky -- and       interpret everything on that basis. But if you don't assume that       then other interpretations don't just seem real but likely.              > The bits of African DNA in Neanderthal       > still have equivalent bits (just with 250,000 years of additional       > changes) in the African population.              Which means the Neanderthal DNA is 250,000 years older.              If the African DNA has 250,000 years of additional changes, it's       younger. It came 250,000 years AFTER the Neanderthal DNA.              And that makes PERFECT sense if we imagine a migration INTO Africa!              Because if a population is adapted to its environment AND THEN LEAVES       THAT ENVIRONMENT it is under brand new adaptive pressures --       evolutionary "Selection."              See?              Does it mean I'm right? No. But it does mean that there most definitely       are additional AND JUST AS VALID (or more so) ways of interpreting       information.              That's all I'm saying. Long winded.                                                        --       https://jtem.tumblr.com/              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca