DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - The Double Slit Experiment & Buddhism's Interpretation.

**MannoFr** · 08-19-2012, 08:55 AM

Rojak Scientist,

Since you are such a strong believer of the Darwinian theory of 'creation out of nowhere' and many real scientists (excluding you, of course) are stilll struggling to try to find an intermediate fossil between an animal (say a pig) and a human (like us, and you excluded, of course).

This is a very poor analogy using a composite of pig and human. How about a lion and a fish -Merlion?

Africans Also Bred With Archaics

Scientists have discovered that humans are actually hybrids between different species.

It is now known that some modern humans have ancestry from Neanderthals or Denisovans. There is also evidence that Black Africans also bred with an African archaic population. This is not really a new discovery, but it is significant that even notorious anti-white racist Sarah Tishkoff is admitting this. A few years ago she was one of the most fanatical advocates of Out of Africa and "there is no such thing as race." The African archaic population was much older and more primitive than either Neanderthals or Denisovans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0726122118.htm

Her article fails to explain that the Hadza of Tanzania are known to be remnants of Capoid peoples. Negroid peoples originated in West Africa. At one time, Capoid peoples inhabited eastern, southern, and parts of central Africa. They were chased out and exterminated in most parts of Africa but still survive in southwest Africa as Bushmen and Hottentots. There are also a few isolated pockets farther north such as the Hadza. Pygmies originated in the Congo area and once constituted the entire population there.

"Using a statistical method, the team detected partial sequences in all three populations that appear to have derived from a hominin different from Homo sapiens. Much as recent studies have found evidence that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, these new findings suggest that the ancestors of modern humans in Africa mated with individuals from another hominin lineage. This archaic lineage appears to have diverged from the modern human lineage several hundred thousand years ago, around the same time that Neanderthals diverged from Homo sapiens." And now, even Tishkoff is writing about introgression! Actually, though, this lineage is much older than Neanderthals and diverged from Homo erectus, not from Homo sapiens. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123.full

There may be other archaic genes in modern humans. Some anthropologists believe that Australian Aborigines are a hybrid between modern humans and Homo erectus. And, the Hobbit people of Indonesia, a pygmy form of Homo erectus, may have left behind descendants in Flores, Timor, and other Indonesian islands. In addition, skulls of archaic humans have been found on the Palau islands, near the Philippines.

The phrase "modern humans" or "anatomically modern humans" is becoming more and more confusing and ambiguous. It basically refers to modern mitochondrial DNA, which originated in Africa among people with small brow ridges. Large brains came from Europe and spread. Thin skulls came from China and spread to other parts of the world. Africa's contribution is small brow ridges and mitochondrial DNA. To liberals, small brow ridges are what makes us human.

Tishkoff also fails to mention the many Caucasoid invasions of Africa, some extending as far south as Kenya and Nigeria. In his early work, Louis Leakey described prehistoric Caucasoid invasions of Kenya. Black Africans are, to some extent, a mixture of anatomically modern humans, an archaic African species, and Caucasoids.

Here is a more intelligent article on the subject: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09...confirmed.html

"

1. Even the fossils we do have do not paint a picture consistent with the naive Out-of-Africa model. For example,H. sapiens idaltu (Herto) was hailed as our ~150ky ancestor when it was published, only to lose that title by the redating of Omo to ~195ky. Omo is more modern than Herto anatomically, so this is consistent with the idea of modern humans not being the "only game in town", when they make their entrance
2. Indeed, unquestionably modern, but archaic-looking forms persist in the available record down to a few thousand years ago, such as the Fish Hoek and Boskop samples"

"Hammer and his colleagues argue that roughly 2% of the genetic material found in these modern African populations was inserted into the human genome some 35,000 years ago. They say these sequences must have come from a now-extinct member of the Homo genus that broke away from the modern human lineage around 700,000 years ago."

"'Interestingly, the Mbuti represent the only population in our survey that carries the introgressive variant at all three candidate loci, despite the fact that no Mbuti were represented in our initial sequencing survey. Given that the Mbuti population is known to be relatively isolated from other Pygmy and neighboring non-Pygmy populations (26), this suggests that central Africa may have been the homeland of a nowextinct archaic form that hybridized with modern humans.

"'The emerging geographic pattern ofunusual variants discovered here suggests that one such introgressionevent may have taken place in central Africa (wherethere is a very poor fossil record). Interestingly, recent studiesattest to the existence of Late Stone Age human remains witharchaic features in Nigeria (Iwo Eleru) and the DemocraticRepublic of Congo (Ishango) (30–32). The observation that populations from many parts of the world, including Africa, showevidence of introgression of archaic variants (6, 16, 19) suggeststhat genetic exchange between morphologically divergent formsmay be a common feature of human evolution'."

"The most interesting thing, to me at least, is not that Africans too admixed with archaic humans, but rather the time depth of the separation of the admixing groups: 0.7My, which contrasts with the 270-440ky estimated for the modern-Neandertal split by Green et al. So, it appears that archaic admixture may extend even beyond the H. heidelbergensis clade which is ancestral to modern humans and Neandertals, and may encompass late H. erectus populations."

08-19-2012, 08:55 AM	#33
MannoFr Join Date Mar 2007 Posts 4,451 Senior Member	Rojak Scientist, Since you are such a strong believer of the Darwinian theory of 'creation out of nowhere' and many real scientists (excluding you, of course) are stilll struggling to try to find an intermediate fossil between an animal (say a pig) and a human (like us, and you excluded, of course). This is a very poor analogy using a composite of pig and human. How about a lion and a fish -Merlion? Africans Also Bred With Archaics Scientists have discovered that humans are actually hybrids between different species. It is now known that some modern humans have ancestry from Neanderthals or Denisovans. There is also evidence that Black Africans also bred with an African archaic population. This is not really a new discovery, but it is significant that even notorious anti-white racist Sarah Tishkoff is admitting this. A few years ago she was one of the most fanatical advocates of Out of Africa and "there is no such thing as race." The African archaic population was much older and more primitive than either Neanderthals or Denisovans. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0726122118.htm Her article fails to explain that the Hadza of Tanzania are known to be remnants of Capoid peoples. Negroid peoples originated in West Africa. At one time, Capoid peoples inhabited eastern, southern, and parts of central Africa. They were chased out and exterminated in most parts of Africa but still survive in southwest Africa as Bushmen and Hottentots. There are also a few isolated pockets farther north such as the Hadza. Pygmies originated in the Congo area and once constituted the entire population there. "Using a statistical method, the team detected partial sequences in all three populations that appear to have derived from a hominin different from Homo sapiens. Much as recent studies have found evidence that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, these new findings suggest that the ancestors of modern humans in Africa mated with individuals from another hominin lineage. This archaic lineage appears to have diverged from the modern human lineage several hundred thousand years ago, around the same time that Neanderthals diverged from Homo sapiens." And now, even Tishkoff is writing about introgression! Actually, though, this lineage is much older than Neanderthals and diverged from Homo erectus, not from Homo sapiens. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123.full There may be other archaic genes in modern humans. Some anthropologists believe that Australian Aborigines are a hybrid between modern humans and Homo erectus. And, the Hobbit people of Indonesia, a pygmy form of Homo erectus, may have left behind descendants in Flores, Timor, and other Indonesian islands. In addition, skulls of archaic humans have been found on the Palau islands, near the Philippines. The phrase "modern humans" or "anatomically modern humans" is becoming more and more confusing and ambiguous. It basically refers to modern mitochondrial DNA, which originated in Africa among people with small brow ridges. Large brains came from Europe and spread. Thin skulls came from China and spread to other parts of the world. Africa's contribution is small brow ridges and mitochondrial DNA. To liberals, small brow ridges are what makes us human. Tishkoff also fails to mention the many Caucasoid invasions of Africa, some extending as far south as Kenya and Nigeria. In his early work, Louis Leakey described prehistoric Caucasoid invasions of Kenya. Black Africans are, to some extent, a mixture of anatomically modern humans, an archaic African species, and Caucasoids. Here is a more intelligent article on the subject: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09...confirmed.html " 1. Even the fossils we do have do not paint a picture consistent with the naive Out-of-Africa model. For example,H. sapiens idaltu (Herto) was hailed as our ~150ky ancestor when it was published, only to lose that title by the redating of Omo to ~195ky. Omo is more modern than Herto anatomically, so this is consistent with the idea of modern humans not being the "only game in town", when they make their entrance 2. Indeed, unquestionably modern, but archaic-looking forms persist in the available record down to a few thousand years ago, such as the Fish Hoek and Boskop samples" "Hammer and his colleagues argue that roughly 2% of the genetic material found in these modern African populations was inserted into the human genome some 35,000 years ago. They say these sequences must have come from a now-extinct member of the Homo genus that broke away from the modern human lineage around 700,000 years ago." "'Interestingly, the Mbuti represent the only population in our survey that carries the introgressive variant at all three candidate loci, despite the fact that no Mbuti were represented in our initial sequencing survey. Given that the Mbuti population is known to be relatively isolated from other Pygmy and neighboring non-Pygmy populations (26), this suggests that central Africa may have been the homeland of a nowextinct archaic form that hybridized with modern humans. "'The emerging geographic pattern ofunusual variants discovered here suggests that one such introgressionevent may have taken place in central Africa (wherethere is a very poor fossil record). Interestingly, recent studiesattest to the existence of Late Stone Age human remains witharchaic features in Nigeria (Iwo Eleru) and the DemocraticRepublic of Congo (Ishango) (30–32). The observation that populations from many parts of the world, including Africa, showevidence of introgression of archaic variants (6, 16, 19) suggeststhat genetic exchange between morphologically divergent formsmay be a common feature of human evolution'." "The most interesting thing, to me at least, is not that Africans too admixed with archaic humans, but rather the time depth of the separation of the admixing groups: 0.7My, which contrasts with the 270-440ky estimated for the modern-Neandertal split by Green et al. So, it appears that archaic admixture may extend even beyond the H. heidelbergensis clade which is ancestral to modern humans and Neandertals, and may encompass late H. erectus populations."
	Quote