your making no effort to understand the genetic evidence... My DNA results came back with both neanderthal and denisovan and I'm not chinese...
Hybrid jaw bones and teeth are better than "genetic evidence". Also, who were the denisovans? They may have been no more than a small inbred clan of Neanderthal/Erectus Hybrids who only occupied one cave. Oh, you don't like Erectus ref. Okay, make that hybrid Neanderthal and other archaic peoples per the original description. If not H. erectus, who? I do not join the choir that they were representative of any population larger than described above. Whereas, H. erectus has lots of members found over the world spanning hundreds of thousands of years. I gave you your jaw bone, what more evidence of Sapien / Erectus hybridization do you wish? Chinese anthropologist publish lots of this stuff compared to the West. I pick it up when Science magazine communicates the article. For years. Moi r > g No
the chinese are racists, I know I married into the culture...they cling to the delusion they are special, they do not want to be grouped with everone else as equals, they do want to admit we're all one family, that would be a humbling loss of "face"...chinese Anthropologists will have to shut up and learn, morphology was the prime tool for hominid classification but that now places a very distant 2nd to dna, dna is the definitive last word in regards to classification...chinese dna contains neanderthal genetics just like nearly everyone else outside of Africa...the exception being denisovan dna, which is not centered on S.E. Asia/China but in Melonesia and Melonesians are not orientals... ,
Okay the Chinese are racists. You still have a hybrid jaw bone to contend with. BTW the segments of Neanderthal DNA preserved in the Chinese is often different than the segments preserved in European populations. The entanglement of all those ancient peoples is in the DNA contrary to the Western held belief of genocidal replacement by the newest improved Human out of Africa. Continuity of the species via continuous hybridization is the Chinese theory that proved correct. Sometimes hybrids did not work, like those with a Neanderthal Y chromosome may have been infertile. And the latest out of Africa females (may have) had the breeding advantage of being monthly and not seasonal. So their MtDNA is the only MtDNA out there today. Remember European and African goats have similar breeding differences. What does daughter say ? ? Moi r > g No
Professor Alice, she say no way! She's a paleoanthropoligist. [video=youtube;rb9WWXgoH7U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb9WWXgoH7U[/video]
My daughter says the same thing I do...paleontologists have been battling over morphology for decades, paleontology is often an inexact subjective best guess scenario...I could post photos of skulls that you would insist must be homo erectus or some other extinct hominid species only to disappoint you and reveal they're modern man...your jaw bone is irrelevant in the face chemistry, dna destroys the chinese racist narative..... Chinese dna like that of most of us is homo sapien and neanderthal, the exact percentage of neanderthal dna we carry varies from one group to the next, the chinese are not special or different...I suggest the chinese Anthropologists take some beginner classes in genetics...
I love too be on a dig site with Dr Alice for month.... She's very smart but I've seen her programs often enough to know even she will not argue with what the chemists have to say about the evidence...paleontology, anthropology,archeology are soft sciences, they interpret the evidence they see, its very subjective...where do the soft sciences go for definitive confirmation of their findings? The hard sciences, physicists, chemists, geneticists, geologists, etc... The chinese prefer to make the theory fit the narative...their bias is obvious when they put oriental soft tissue features on a homo erectus...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0306_0306_outofafrica.html What part of this Nat Geo article do you and daughter disagree? My guess is the whole thing. Well on this one I am in good company. Decades ago when I advocated Neanderthal / Sapian hybrids, I was so very alone. Today I can my main anthropologist antagonist. I find the idea that only some hybrids may have been fertile, and some may not have been viable indicating the humanoids had almost become different species, unable to interbred. And your Chinese have many segments of Neanderthal DNA not integrated in Euros although the total % of Neanderthal remains about the same. Moi r > g No
your creating a strawman...you make claims on morphology alone and want ignore definitive dna which doesn't agree with your narative, even your link makes the same point I do, morphology is subjective, it's a best guess scenario in the absence of hard scientific evidence, but That's good enough for you, you'll take that crumb and run with it.... now you're full of crap....I told you a number of months ago that I wrote a paper in support of neanderthal/sapiens interbreeding some 30 yrs ago, and now here you are claiming it was you?...you're heading for the ignore bin with that tactic... what that! You've given up your "chinese aren't sapiens theyre homo erectus" game plan...neanderthal dna ranges from 1-4%...at this time mine is estimated at 1.9%...the exact percentage is irrelevant. ..
Proportion of alleles shared with the Neandertal and Denisovan genomes for the Tianyuan and present-day individuals. If Han Chinese look more archaic than Europeans, it's due to Denisovan admixture that affected some East Asian populations (0-0.7%) rather than the proposed admixture with Homo erectus. The proportion of Denisovan alleles is much higher among Melanesians (up to 5%) because the interbreeding between H. sapiens and the Denisovans occurred largely in Southeast Asia, where they were displaced by more modern humans. Melanesians in Papua New Guinea as well as Aboriginal Australians have the highest levels of Denisovan DNA today and some mainland Asians such as the Yi or Lolo people in China, Vietnam, and Thailand as well as Taiwanese aborigines also retain some levels of Denisovan ancestry and Han Chinese could have historically interbred with these primitive populations in East Asia, thus inheriting Denisovan DNA to some extent. The Yi are also thought to be the ancestors of the Tibetan, Naxi and Qiang peoples and researchers (Huerta-Sánchez et al. 2014) recently discovered that the Tibetans have inherited several genes (e.g. EPAS1) that help them use smaller amounts of oxygen efficiently from the Denisovans, allowing them to deliver enough oxygen to their limbs while exercising at high altitude. The presence of Denisovan alleles in the European genome (0-0.2%) is yet to be explained but it could be due to their common ancestry with East Asians and Denisovan admixture with modern humans could have occurred prior to Europeans' genetic split with East Asians. The whole ritual procedure, with different kinds of dances as its main part, is the most ancient and well-preserved ritual for ethnic Yi people.
Comparisons of DNA sequences can be done for pairs of individuals from the same population or for pairs of individuals from different populations. Populations can be defined in various ways; one common way is to group individuals into populations according to a continent of origin. Using this definition, individuals from different populations have roughly 10 percent to 15 percent more sequence differences than do individuals from the same population (this estimate is approximately the same for both SNPs see below and CNVs). In other words, people from different populations are slightly more different at the DNA level than are people from the same population. The slightness of this difference supports the conclusion that all humans are genetically quite similar to one another, irrespective of their geographic ancestry http://www.nchpeg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=142&Itemid=64
I searched for a DNA heat map that I came across not long ago(unsuccessfully) it mapped out Denisovan DNA hot spot radiating out from melanesia...the genetic evidence would suggest if any population would bear a physical resemblance to Denisovans it would melanesians and not the han chinese...the significance of the heatmap would indicate sapiens/denisovan mixture occurred east of the Wallace line...
Okay. Where is the H. erectus genome ? Did this archaic human that spread across the old world north of the Sahara just experience genomic wipe out as use to be said of Neanderthal ? Yes / No ? I have spent time since my last upload searching the topic. Articles regarding Denisovan speak of Neanderthal with another ancient hominid. Articles regarding Modern Tibetans high altitude adaptations speak of hybrid with another ancient hominid. Doesn't H. erectus get any respect as that, ancient hominid considering they were in both places. It sure seems like the mongrel Denisovan, based on so few specimens gets more respect by most on this board. Moi r > g No
Hammer et al. (2011) detect ancient admixture in African populations and Homo erectus or other archaic humans such as H. rudolphensis and H. ergaster may have interbred with sub-Saharan African populations in central Africa about 35,000 years ago. Up to 2% of uniquely archaic genes have been discovered in the modern African genome and it was found that the ancestors of modern Africans mixed with a mysterious population that diverged about 700,000 years ago from H. sapiens. If Han Chinese had exchanged genes with H. erectus in Asia, scientists would have already detected it but the Denisovans may have interbred with H. erectus as gene flow into the Denisovans from an unknown archaic group possibly occurred in the Late Pleistocene, according to Prüfer et al. (2014).
What is wrong with this new Tree of Humanity from Scientific American ? Klicken das foto Moi r > g No
no one questions H erectus as an ancestor, it's just your insistence that H erectus is the exclusive majority ancestor of han chinese that is ludicrous, the DNA evidence verifies that the han are just like the rest of us...Chinese claims to the contrary which are based on ideals of racial purity, that they (the Han) are different(better) than the rest of humanity...
The question was asked, What is wrong with this "Latest, Most Modern" interpretation of the evolution of peoplekind. View attachment 29482 Klicken das foto The Answer is - Those branches should be coming back together, recombining and branching and doing the same all over again like deja vu. Continuity through continuous hybridization ! Just say, "No" to independent branching and species Moi r > g No
I just came up with a hypothesis on the subject. What if, back in the day when life was just emerging and DNA was sorta new and all, It was so elementary that anything could breed with anything else. Reproduction was the goal, not specialization. Only as DNA evolved did specialization come into play and the ability to "interbreed" was lost. Could be why there are so many species of living things still around today. Some very much like others with only slight variations.
99% of the people I see every day I have zero interest, and I have zero interest mating with a monkey or yak or a bald eagle. I don't know why but this is how I feel, therefore, I'll guess most other species are similar in which they are only going to mate with their own. Sure, anything is possible after a few drinks and some wacky-weed. Even microbes care about who they mate with. I'm glad most of the species are selective when it comes to mating...
recognition...if a species does not recognize another individual as the same species there is no interest...I recall reading about a species of bird which lives in central asia, it has two subspecies that occupy areas that border the east and west parts of range...both sub-species will mate with the central species but the eastern and western sub-species do not recognize each other and do not mate even though they probably could...I don't recall if the reason was appearance or behavioural differences or a combination of the two...
Sex and mating are two areas to consider. Not wanting to get too graphic here, a man can have sex with a sheep. If man has sex with sheep over very long periods of time, man will realize that his species is slowly becoming extinct. If there is a need for species survival, man will not only have sex with other humans but will also mate to replenish the species. I suppose I could comment the same would apply if two women or two men wish to have sex, in which case they can be sexually satisfied, but they will see their species slowly go extinct....at which point they must have sex and mate with the opposite sex no matter their lifestyle choices. We don't know what microbes are thinking, or what a horse and dog are thinking, but I'm guessing both will eventually find out that they simply don't feel a compatibility towards the other and will pass. And I suspect each animal or human, especially between sexes, will have varying compatibility requirements. For example, even though both are of the human species, I'm sure men and women will have very different compatibility requirements for the mate they choose; so does this cross over into the behavioral area?
They made jewelry, buried their dead, and left behind haunting abstract paintings on the walls of their caves. Now a new finding in Gibraltar, one of the last regions of the world where Neanderthals survived, is further evidence that Neanderthals had a recognizably human culture. We've known for almost a decade that early humans interbred with Neanderthals, and there is evidence that the two groups may even have shared caves. And the more we've learned about this group of thick-browed, barrel-chested people, the more likely it seems that they were simple an example of early human diversity rather than a separate species. [video=youtube;x62sWppM3co]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x62sWppM3co[/video] This newly-announced discovery, of dramatic carvings in a cave wall (see top image), helps build up a picture of Neanderthals as a group with many of the characteristics of paleolithic humans. They had tools, lived in small communities, and created symbolic art. Their toolkits were not the same as those carried by Homo sapiens at the time the two groups met, over 60 thousand years ago in Europe and the Middle East, but they might be equivalent. http://io9.com/dramatic-cave-art-confirms-that-neanderthals-were-basic-1629541617
The continuing lesson seems to be those archaic peoples of Eurasia hybridized and were more and more like "people" than expected the day before yesterday. True wyly ? And we agree not all hybrids "worked". They may have been non viable due to too much "species" separation or just infertile like a horse & donkey = mule. But, those that did work and were fertile seemed to have had an advantage - Si ? Moi r > g View attachment 29646
horse +donkey=mule, male mules are always sterile, females occasionlly are viable....the dna evidence suggests something similar occured with neanderthal and sapiens, the male offspring always being sterile but the female hybrids still capable of having young... Viable erectus sapiens hybrids, highly unlikely....
