400,000 Year Old DNA Discovered

Moxie

Jedi Knight
Mar 24, 2009
4,174
102
0
400,000 year old human DNA found in thigh bone - UPI.com

Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins - NYTimes.com



Ancient astronauts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Sitchin claimed there are Sumerian texts which tell the story that 50 Anunnaki, inhabitants of a planet named Nibiru, came to Earth approximately 400,000 years ago"


bwU4r.gif






























































37516343.jpg
 


Based on previously discovered ancient DNA and fossil evidence, scientists generally agreed that humans’ direct ancestors shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals and Denisovans that lived about half a million years ago in Africa.



Their shared ancestors split off from humans’ lineage and left Africa, then split further into the Denisovans and Neanderthals about 300,000 years ago. The evidence suggested that Neanderthals headed west, toward Europe, and that the Denisovans moved east.



Humans’ ancestors, meanwhile, stayed in Africa, giving rise to Homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago. Humans then expanded from Africa into Asia and Europe about 60,000 years ago. They then interbred not only with Neanderthals, but with Denisovans, too. Later, both the Denisovans and Neanderthals became extinct.

Yeah, that's the Out of Africa theory.

One common ancestor and all that. Not very likely though.

I guess the fact that there were denisovans in Spain 100.000 years before denisovans and neanderthal supposedly left Africa kind of busts that myth wide open.

Perhaps, that is why some ethnicities have much greater denisovan heritage (asians) and neanderthal heritage (whites)?

Genome of Denisovan cave girl sheds light on human ancestry - Technology & Science - CBC News
Their work provides the most detailed picture yet of the human that lived alongside Neanderthals and contributed to the genetic heritage of people living in Southeast Asia, Papua New Guinea and possibly Australian Aborigines.

Feeling like a Neanderthal? Here's why – Light Years - CNN.com Blogs

Research says modern humans of non-African heritage have distant genetic ties to Neanderthals - cousins of modern humans who went extinct 30,000 years ago.

Higher Levels of Neanderthal Ancestry in East Asians Than in Europeans

We find that, consistent with the recent finding of Meyer et al. (2012), Neanderthals contributed more DNA to modern East Asians than to modern Europeans.

Look at an IQ map, then look at high neanderthal heritage. That Neanderthal DNA is excellent.

Most recent depiction of Neanderthal:

neanderthal-615.jpg


I think I met the woman above in Ireland.

Most recent depiction of Homo Erectus:

homoerectus.jpg


I think I met that dude at last week at a reggae concert.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dzianis
One common ancestor and all that. Not very likely though.

Genes get passed down from ancestors.

Modern humans have 96% of the same genes as chimpanzees. The percent similar between modern humans and neanderthal, denisovans, and homo erectus is of course much higher.

Only about .01 of human genes account for appearance.

homoerectus.jpg


I think I met that dude at last week at a reggae concert.

And here is a picture of an Australian Aborigine :

Aboringinal_man.jpg


Modern Africans share more genes with caucasians than they do with the Aboriginees.

Race and genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
They can trace all males back to a common ancestor, what they call 'Scientific Adam':

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJDrCQXi0mU"]The Search For Scientific Adam - YouTube[/ame]

Apparently, Genghis Khan is responsible for a big chunk of that.

5PmOfuD.jpg
 
Genes get passed down from ancestors.

Modern humans have 96% of the same genes as chimpanzees. The percent similar between modern humans and neanderthal, denisovans, and homo erectus is of course much higher.

That's one way to look at it and it is actually 98% with chimps. We also share something like 96% with pigs and even most primitive animals share 90% of human dna and 50% with cabbage.

Rather it is the difference in between species that is interesting. Dogs and Grey Wolves for example only differ 0.2% (scroll to Review of Wayne), while the mainstream (but not nessecarily correct) hypothesis is that all humans differ between 0.2 and 1 percent.

In fact there ARE major racial differences in DNA, it is perfectly possible to tell the race from DNA and scientists now believe there may be as much as 1% difference in DNA, which taking into account that we share 50% DNA with cabbage is actually a significant number:

How Small Genetic Differences Create Racial Diversity
Geneticist Steve Scherer, a senior scientist at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, has said: “Based on what we now know it (the genetic difference) is probably in the 0.2% range and in the end it may even be as high as one per cent.” (6)

Within the last eight years scientists have carried out in-depth work to chart these genetic variations. One of these, Francis S. Collins, a former leader of the Human Genome Project, had to admit that “well-intentioned statements” about the biological insignificance of race may have left the wrong impression: “It is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection”. (7)
So you see, when dogs and grey wolf are considered separate species or sub-species if you will by only 0.2% difference, then when there may be as much as 1% variation between human races, you could easily - judging from the massive physical differences - that we are in fact not one species divided into meaningless races (which is a purely political junk science claim by Lewontin), but actually sub-species of hominid. Even your hero Richard Dawkins admitted that there was very real racial difference in DNA.

There are probably hundreds of 'sub-species' in the world with far less variation than humans, so either they are misclassified and should be classified as breeds or races or humans are missclassified and should be classified as sub-species. So maybe we should just call the wolf a dog or call the dog a wolf?

A more realistic analysis, given further strenght from the above, is that the Out of Africa theory is bunk and that there have likely been significant and diverse interbreeding of hominids creating different sub-species.
 
aborigines are the ugliest people on the planet, maybe some of the guys look sort of like regular black guys but the girls...

Australian_Aborigines_hd_4.jpg
 
Yeah, that's the Out of Africa theory.

One common ancestor and all that. Not very likely though.

I guess the fact that there were denisovans in Spain 100.000 years before denisovans and neanderthal supposedly left Africa kind of busts that myth wide open.

Perhaps, that is why some ethnicities have much greater denisovan heritage (asians) and neanderthal heritage (whites)?

The reason they think we came out of Africa is to do with our X and Y chromosomes (the bit of DNA that gives us our gender, which is in the nucleus of our cells).

They change very very slowly (on evidence only every 10,000 years, and when they change, they develop additional markers, while retaining the original markers).

If you think of the mitrochondrial (X chromosome) DNA as an enormous string of letters, every single human on earth has the exact same marker in their mitochrondria at position 4312, which we don't share with other homonids and apes.

Different groups have additional markers. So people from southern India will have the african marker at 4312, the east african marker at position 16223, the asian marker at position 10400 (known as group M), and some further markers indicating different indian ethnicities. Someone from Europe will have the african marker at position 4312, the east african marker at position 16223, and the indo-european/caucasian marker at position 12705 (known as group R) with further additional markers denoting different sub-branches of europeans.

The key thing is that we all have the same african marker at 4312, and everyone outside africa has the east african marker at position 16223 as well, which is why they think that the continents outside Africa were populated by a small group of east africans who left by crossing into arabia. (Carbon dating of skeletons indicate they left Africa thousands of years after the Neanderthals did).

As to "why africa and why east africa" - just because the oldest skeletons with these markers have been found in Africa. If the oldest skeleton with these markers had been found in Europe, then we'd be all "out of Europe". However, the very old homonoids found in Europe don't have this common marker at position 4312 on the mitochondria. And the oldest skeletons with human Y chromosomes are also from Africa.

Mitochondria (the X chromosome) is passed from the mother to all her children, but only the daughter passes it on to her children (so all girls have XX and boys have XY).

If a homo sapian female had mated with a neanderthal male, all her children would have the homo sapian mitochondria, with the tell-tale marker at position 4312. If a neanderthal female had mated with a homo sapian male, then her children would have the neanderthal mitochondria but her male children would have a human Y chromosome. If a neanderthal female mated with a neanderthal male, both the mitochondria and Y chromosome would be neanderthal, and if a homo sapian female mated with a homo sapian male, then both the mitochondria and Y chromosome would be human.

These are the only possibilities - it's not possible to be descended from a neanderthal and not show either a sign of a neanderthal female ancestor or neanderthal male ancestor through the X and Y chromosomes.

So in order to prove that some people have either a male or female neanderthal ancestor, you need to find someone without those human gender markers at position 4312 on the mitochondria- and so far they haven't found them.

Before the genome was sequenced, the Chinese believed that they were descended from neanderthals and this made them "different" and "special". (Archaeologists had found evidence of a huge neanderthal settlement in China complete with skeletons and tools).

But when their mitochondria was sequenced it had that tell-tale marker at position 4312 which the neanderthals didn't have, and which the oldest skeleton with it being in africa. And when Y chromosomes were sequenced, they too showed a common african homo sapian ancestor rather than a neanderthal ancestor. So they too have come out of Africa.

I suppose it's possible that somewhere on earth there is a descendant of a neanderthal - but they are testing DNA all over the place - modern people, ancient skeletons, remote tribes, people in cities, and they haven't yet found someone without that african marker at position 4312 on their mitochondria.

Perhaps it could be you! Go get your DNA tested.
 
So in order to prove that some people have either a male or female neanderthal ancestor, you need to find someone without those human gender markers at position 4312 on the mitochondria- and so far they haven't found them.
Your knowledge is outdated I think. It is well documented that every race but black has neanderthal DNA or are you saying something else?