We’re the cavemen, not Neanderthals

https://www.mpg.de/7494657/neandertals_leather_tools

“acquired”

Humans never admit they wronged another species.

Some argue that before they were replaced, Neandertals had cultural capabilities similar to modern humans, while others argue that these similarities only appear once modern humans came into contact with Neandertals.

Better than ‘humans’ of the time, clearly.

 “Lissoirs like these are a great tool for working leather, so much so that 50 thousand years after Neandertals made these, I was able to purchase a new one on the Internet from a site selling tools for traditional crafts,” says Soressi. “It shows that this tool was so efficient that it had been maintained through time with almost no change. It might be one or perhaps even the only heritage from Neandertal times that our society is still using today.”

Bullshit.

They know we non-Africans have their genes, they hope we don’t know.

Maybe human genius is just higher percentages of Neanderthal. It would explain NW Europe’s incredible ingenuity and science, even compared to other Whites.

Haven’t you wondered why they want your DNA? (Before whites die out, ofc).

And the companies privately researching never find/report Neanderthal DNA, unlike real geneticists?

You know how they acted like this is a vague finding?

Left until right at the end, where only nerds read:

The results place the Pech-de-l’Azé I bone tool to approximately 50 thousand years ago.

This is well before the best evidence of modern humans in Western Europe, and it is much older than any other examples of sophisticated bone tool technologies.

Negative evidence of ‘human’ superiority.

Racial realities, mixed race fertility and Neanderthals

Hope you poured a drink you could prop a spoon in.

I found stuff by accident again.

http://www.academia.edu/542911/Neanderthal-human_hybrids

Neanderthal women couldn’t conceive with humans.

Different species.

It would be interesting to see if there are fertility problems between races…

I thought.
Google autocompletes “are mixed race less fertile”
Interesting.

Rumours that Asians and Africans have more trouble with IVF, even among those who already need IVF.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/freedom-of-information/what-can-i-request/previous-foi-requests/health-and-social-care/information-regarding-mixed-race-parentage/index.html

Infertility information isn’t gathered, which sounds weird for a data-mining project???
They collect the differing types of data but somehow can’t put them together? I call BS.

http://sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html
Cavalli-Sforza’s genetic distances.
I knew HBD would have the answer.

“It is almost the equivalent to having twice the number of children… Thus assortative mating by ethnicity can have large fitness benefits, the largest derived from choosing mates within geographic races.”

they pass on more of themselves, less genetic death per carrier (child)
May increase the values for Ks in parental investment theory.

“In other words and general terms, a white mother will be almost as twice as closely related to a child with a white father versus a child with a black father.”

Bear in mind, this isn’t opinion. It’s genetic.

“But when I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien.”
LOL
The non-white always benefits far in excess due to dominating the white phenotypes.
They’re hoping to reduce their mutation load/disease risk. The white party loses.

“But still, I can’t shake off the feeling of unease. I didn’t realise how much her looking different would matter… When she was born, pale but with lots of dark hair, I asked the midwife if her eyes would stay blue. ‘Asian genes are very strong,’ she said in what I took to be an ominous tone. No more Brady Bunch kids for me. The midwife has been proved right and every day my baby’s eyes get a little darker.””

Wow so Nazi to insist your daughter look like you. /s
WTF do these r-types expect?

“Since parents share fewer genes with mixed-race children, people involved in interracial marriages are short-changing their own genes, which might explain why people engaged in mixed-race relationships often tend to have lower mate value.”

oh yeah
they signal how they can’t get one of their own so they settled
we all know how attractive desperation is, socially and sexually

“In general, mixed-race people have more health problems.”
The hybrid vigour thing was always a lie, it’s reduced fitness.
According to the field of medicine.

In other words, an argument could be made that mixed-race families are maladaptive — both for the parents and the children — and undermine one’s genetic interests. As noted by various commenters, multiracial families often do not possess the harmony, cooperation and purposefulness of same-race families, because mixed-race families lack the focus of genetic investment and returns that same-race families possess.”

Like a kind of …selection…

White British genes best at IVF *hums national anthem*

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160818212907.htm
“The study also found that some groups of women including South Asian Bangladeshi, Black African, Middle Eastern, have a significantly lower number of eggs collected than White British women.”
weeaboos lament
“Furthermore, the increased prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in south Asian women may have an impact on egg quality and lower implantation rates.”
“The data suggests that ethnicity is a major independent factor determining the chances of IVF or ICSI treatment success.”
No shit Sherlock. Could it be something of a biological thing going on here…?
“While the reason for this association is difficult to explain, the potential factors could be the observed differences in cause of infertility, ovarian response, fertilisation rates and implantation rates, which are all independent predictors of IVF success.”
Difficult? Awkward.
“”Infertility affects 10-15% of the population and more people are seeking fertility treatment.”
Isn’t that approaching the rate of mixed race couples? Coincidence, I’m sure. I’d like to check but nobody gives enough of a damn about them to collect the data.
“The reasons behind the variation need to be looked at in more detail but in the future could potentially help improve success rates amongst all groups of women.””
Not if it’s genetic.

Another study!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131029220758.htm
“live birth rates of ethnic women were significantly lower”

White women healthiest post-birth
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130211102222.htm
almost like an evolved advantage…

Disgust toward mixed-race couples at biological level
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-bias-disgust-mixed-race-couples.html
“”That indicates that viewing images of interracial couples evokes disgust at a neural level,” Skinner said.”
“Participants were quicker to associate interracial couples with non-human animals and same-race couples with humans.”
lol
do you ‘fucking love science’ now?

Mixed race babies weaker babies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/
“contribute to the substantially higher demonstrated risk for stillbirth”
it’s healthy! they tell you
only because they aren’t collecting the data to argue otherwise
I would sue because that’s academic neglect and actual systemic racism.

You really have to search even for data on successful births, then there’s NO fitness advantage by rate.
http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/122287
“This paper investigates whether mixed race couples have different or same fertility level than same race couples”
“Same race couples have on average 1.93 children while mixed couples have 2.05 children. Same race couples have lower fertility because the majority of those couples are white. This data shows that homo and heterogamous unions do not have the same fertility level”
“Mixed race couples have fertility levels that fall in between same race couples; not as high as black or brown couples but not as low as the white couple.”
Regression to the mean, my old friend.

Ya gotta really LOOK.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/obgyn/pregnancy/11111
Oh look, mutation load.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-harder-for-interracial-couples-to-conceive
“I can’t find any studies on this at all.”
Red flag to ANYONE else?
“I heard from student of medicine that interracial couples could have problem conceiving child because of their racial differences.”
Why not study it?
They’re screwing over the mixed-race kids.
Possibly killing them, in the long run. That’s just sick, not to study it. Parents deserve to know.

The manosphere dudes with Yellow Fever won’t be pleased.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/10/the-prenatal-wages-of-interracial-relationships/
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/sumc-acf092508.php
“In both of these cases there isn’t something mystical going on; God is not smiting those who are sinning by crossing racial lines. Human spontaneous abortion rates are high. Much of this might be due to mother-child immune system responses. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that people from very genetically distinct populations have very different immune profiles. …”
It does if they grow up hearing everyone is biologically equal.
There is some data which might suggest that genetic relatedness increases reproductive fitness, possibly because of reduced risk of immune incompatibilities between mother and fetus when the father is more closely related to the mother. It stands to reason then that as the father becomes more genetically distant the likelihood of incompatibilities might increase. All of this means that genes matter, and they matter in ways we can possibly predict.”

Then predict.

Do the science.

Your JOB.

http://brembs.net/hamilton/
Irony, the name.
K-selected cooperation in a formula.

Inbreeding is generally better than outbreeding due to inclusive fitness.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088844/
applies to other species too
As long as you don’t screw close relations and over many generations, you’re fine.

Wasps! That’s the depth of the barrel I scrape for data on this. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!
https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/22/2/337/208104/Reproductive-skew-is-highly-variable-and
Because for some reason nobody takes the data in humans.
Some strange, open-minded reason.
They find cooperation. In insects.

Needs more genetics, more studies. Generally correct.

Video: The Druids and the Egyptians

hey, these posts are fun

advice to the guy: faster tempo, less monotone sound like you’re reading out a lecture, imagine you’re flirting with someone at a bar, fast back and forth to ideas


Contains:
The origin of the name Scotland and the Stone of Destiny.
Africans don’t have red hair and straight noses, also statues are absorbent, a lot of people dunno that. These white people (red hair is recessive down the ENTIRE line, it’s a Neanderthal trait actually) brought horses and chariots to Egypt, along with metallurgical technology (later expanded during the Scientific Revolution).
NW European genetics link at 7 minutes. GENETICS. 70% of British men. Less than 1% of modern Egyptians have that connection.
BOOM.

boom boom boom blackadder
KANGS WUZ KANGS. WIZARD KINGS WITH MAGIC ROCKS.

Once read a theory that Jesus was in Britain during one of his disappearing binges.
I bet that ties in.

Someone get this guy on alt right podcasts.
Seriously, why is he not a thing?


Relates to the Rhesus Negative mutation, which prevents outbreeding to an extent by aborting Positive babies (look it up, medical fact), thereby it must‘ve evolved in isolation (recessive).
Rh- is not present in Africans. It comes from the Cro Magnon man.

TLDR: OOA (Out of Africa) is BS. The BBC should really hire this guy since he crosses over into forensics, wider biology and other fields that are nigh-on impossible to falsify (unlike most mainstream cultural anthropology). That would be intellectually honest, which we know they are not.

The woman on the cover of The Occult Secrets of Vril may have known Nikola Tesla.

I… heard.
Somewhere.

Link: Neanderthal’s under-rated genius

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/01/24/neanderthals-underrated-genius/#.WIojkVOLTZ4

“For the Levallois technique, the toolmaker takes an oblong, relatively flat flint nodule and strikes flakes off the thinner sides of the core all the way around its circumference. She then flips the nodule over and strikes flakes off its front side, then flips it again to do the same on the back. Finally, and after a lot of such preparation, the toolmaker strikes one end of the core to remove a large and distinctive “Levallois flake” off its front. By design, the edge of the Levallois flake will follow the contours of previous flake scars, creating a very nice, thin, and predictably shaped tool.”

this is awkward

Women own the domain of art, men veer toward cookery, carpentry, ballistics.

Women were the original cave-painters too. They finally measured the palms. Facts are hard for sexist idiots.

They act like ancient man had thousands of hours per week and the women just sat around…. knitting.

The women made these things for everyone to enjoy once the men returned.
To deny female creativity is practically to deny one’s own birth.

It isn’t even a feminist thing in the old sense, it’s mathematics.
It’s like when they try to claim the Scientific Revolution was a sausage fest. Certainly there were more men (because women were physically banned from Universities) but it was much more a matter of class (there were high-born men and high-born women and barely a whit of difference between them).

Link: The decline and Neanderthal DNA

http://vault-co.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/anyone-who-appears-to-be-able-to-reason.html

Thus far, the genetic studies have vindicated this position, to my knowledge.

http://www.livescience.com/7153-scientist-humans-strange-neanderthals-normal.html
There are a race of human: http://www.livescience.com/1122-neanderthal-99-5-percent-human.html

But excavations and anatomical studies have shown Neanderthals used tools, wore jewelery, buried their dead, cared for their sick, and possibly sang or even spoke in much the same way that we do. Even more humbling, perhaps, their brains were slightly larger than ours.

The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal’s humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.

Human cortical evolution gene found: ARHGAP11B

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/02/xeroxed-gene-may-have-paved-way-large-human-brain

memo: Thickness of the cerebral cortex is a good proxy for intelligence.

Several years ago, another group had discovered that this gene had arisen after an ancestral gene made an incomplete copy of itself. Because humans had the additional version whereas chimps did not, they concluded that the duplication occurred after the human and chimp lineages split off. Neither mice nor chimps have ARHGAP11B, but modern humans and their ancient relatives, the Denisovans and Neandertals, do. “That it was a human-specific gene duplication made it very exciting,” Huttner says.

You WANT wrinkles on your brain.

Were Neanderthals a different species?

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/02/04/were-neanderthals-a-different-species/

It’s no longer news that everybody except Africans possess a bit of Neanderthal DNA. And it really is just a bit; the latest two studies, published just last week, put the average at less than 2 percent.

It turns out, though, that your 2 percent is likely somewhat different from my 2 percent. Adding up the disparate bits means that Neanderthals have contributed at least 20 percent of their genomes to anatomically modern humans. (“Anatomically modern humans,” that’s us, the last Homo standing, and for clarity and convenience, occasionally I will use the shorthand designation some paleontologists use:  AMH.)

I wonder which traits they code for.

The Neanderthal DNA scattered around the modern human genome could total as much as 40 percent or more of the Neanderthal genome, the researchers say. That means it might not always be necessary to raid precious fossils for their DNA or go through contortions to assemble error-free ancient DNA sequences and prevent contamination by modern DNA. It might be possible to do fossil-free studies of the Neanderthal genome, studies carried out on their DNA preserved for science in today’s humans. It appears that we are walking labs for studying paleogenomics.

Results may vary.

How Neanderthal DNA helped us

A portion of that legacy DNA seems to have done us good. About 3 in 5 of the AMH genomes from the 1000 Genomes Project that were examined in these two studies possess the Neanderthal versions of some DNA involved in making skin and hair. The researchers believe that may have helped our migrating ancestors adapt to a Northern climate, one that was colder and less sunny than their original home in Africa. It may also have bolstered our defenses against new pathogens.

But there are also big stretches of the AMH genome that contain no Neanderthal DNA at all. “To me, these ‘holes of Neanderthal sequence’ are the most interesting aspect,” Joshua Akey told me in an email. (Akey is an author of one of last week’s papers, which appeared in Science. )”[T]hey might provide a roadmap to positions in the genome that endow uniquely human traits.” Where they are absent, natural selection may have decided that the AMH versions were doing a better job and so eliminated the Neanderthal counterparts. Hence these “deserts” may help define the most important genetic differences between us and them.

Pathological altruism, perhaps? They trusted humans too much. Nice term for probable cannibalism.

What the DNA “deserts” mean

There are deserts on the X chromosome and in genes involved in the testes. Patterns like these in other species ranging from rabbits to fruit flies are regarded as signs that one species is about to split into two.

Do not address the elephant.
Who is human?

Hybrid males descended from both branches tend to be infertile, like mules. That’s because males have only one X chromosome, and if it happens to be one that impairs their fertility, then they may not reproduce. Females have two X chromosomes, so even if one is impaired, if the other one is normal, it can rescue her ability to bear young.

“So this suggests that the male hybrids might not have been fertile, whereas the females might have been fully fertile,” Svante Pääbo told Richard Harris of National Public Radio. Pääbo, the grand old man of ancient DNA based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, was an author of the other paper, which appeared in Nature. We might have inherited most of our Neanderthal genes through hybrid females, he said.

Women do have far more genetic data overall. Gotta do something.

Fox News quoted Pääbo as saying Neanderthals must have been disappointed in their sons.

Another author, David Reich of Harvard Medical School, told reporters that we and Neanderthals “were at the edge of biological compatibility.”

Better than human?

“This underlines that modern humans and Neanderthals are indeed different species,” Fred Spoor told New Scientist. Spoor is also at the Leipzig Max Planck but was not a part of the Neanderthal research. Other scientists are more cautious about making so firm a declaration, but it’s clear that many lean toward that same conclusion, that Neanderthals were not Homo sapiens neanderthalensis but, rather, Homo neanderthalensis.

Uhuh. Sure.

Darren Curnoe, a human evolutionary biologist at the University of New South Wales, blogged, “The latest findings from genome comparisons reinforce the status of Neanderthals and modern humans as distinct species. Those anthropologists who continue to regard Neanderthals as members of Homo sapiens now face a stronger challenge than ever reconciling their position with the DNA.”

Living people aren’t proof enough?

Speak up

If there is one trait above all others that is responsible for our success, it is fluent language. That’s why a detail almost buried in the Science paper caught my eye, and a few other writers mentioned it in passing. The authors reported that none of the modern genomes they examined contained the Neanderthal version of the chromosome region where the FOXP2 gene is situated. In these 665 people, that region, on the long arm of chromosome 7, was one of those Neanderthal deserts.

All land vertebrates possess a version of this gene. One type of FOXP2 has been shown to be associated with vocal learning in young songbirds. More than a decade ago, researchers linked a mutant version of the human gene with a set of unusual language difficulties in a particular family.

Despite what you may have heard, FOXP2 is not a “language gene” per se. Among other functions, it seems to affect motor neuron control in parts of the brain involved in the ability to vocalize.

In 2011, Pääbo reported that the modern human and Neanderthal FOXP2 genes were identical. This led to excited speculation that Neanderthals could probably speak as we do. But last year researchers discovered differences in the way the AMH and Neanderthal FOXP2 genes are regulated. The protein-coding sequences may be the same, but they are controlled in different ways.

Almost like a distinct race….

The fact that none of the contemporary genomes studied seem to possess exactly the same version of FOXP2 as Neanderthals after all, that it looks as if none of the 665 people examined has hung on to the Neanderthal version, suggests that we may have found it wanting and evolution eliminated it entirely from our line. Which suggests, in turn, that Neanderthals might not have had our fluent speaking abilities after all. (Please note that I’m just running my mouth here in the usual speculative Homo sapiens fashion, and that we are speaking of data from only 665 people; the Neanderthal capacity for speech has not been established either way.)

or eloquence
let’s see Shakespeare’s DNA-FOXP2.

But since no evolutionary development has been more important to the rise of anatomically modern humans and our domination of the planet than language, it might perhaps be said that fluent speech by itself is a defining characteristic of our species.

Language which allowed overt deception. Deception is the defining characteristic of our species.

And that any hominins that lack it are not us.

Racist.

Neanderthals’ DNA legacy linked to modern ailments

Full from http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/01/neanderthals-dna-legacy-linked-to-modern-ailments/ ;

Remnants of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans are associated with genes affecting type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, lupus, biliary cirrhosis, and smoking behavior. They also concentrate in genes that influence skin and hair characteristics. At the same time, Neanderthal DNA is conspicuously low in regions of the X chromosome and testes-specific genes.

The research, led by Harvard Medical School (HMS) geneticists and published Jan. 29 in Nature, suggests ways in which genetic material inherited from Neanderthals has proven both adaptive and maladaptive for modern humans. (A related paper by a separate team was published concurrently in Science.)

“Now that we can estimate the probability that a particular genetic variant arose from Neanderthals, we can begin to understand how that inherited DNA affects us,” said David Reich, professor of genetics at HMS and senior author of the paper.

In the past few years, studies by groups including Reich’s have revealed that present-day people of non-African ancestry trace an average of about 2 percent of their genomes to Neanderthals — a legacy of interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals that the team previously showed occurred between 40,000 to 80,000 years ago. (Indigenous Africans have little or no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not breed with Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and Asia.)

Several teams have since been able to flag Neanderthal DNA at certain locations in the non-African human genome, but until now, there was no survey of Neanderthal ancestry across the genome and little understanding of the biological significance of that genetic heritage.

“The story of early human evolution is captivating in itself, yet it also has far-reaching implications for understanding the organization of the modern human genome,” said Irene A. Eckstrand of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which partially funded the research. “Every piece of this story that we uncover tells us more about our ancestors’ genetic contributions to modern human health and disease.”

Deserts and oases

Reich and his colleagues — including Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany — analyzed genetic variants in 846 people of non-African heritage, 176 people from sub-Saharan Africa, and a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal whose high-quality genome sequence the team published in 2013.

The most powerful information the researchers used to determine whether a gene variant came from a Neanderthal was if it appeared in some non-Africans and the Neanderthal, but not in the sub-Saharan Africans.

Using this and other types of information, the team found that some areas of the modern non-African human genome were rich in Neanderthal DNA, which may have been helpful for human survival, while other areas were more like “deserts” with far less Neanderthal ancestry than average.

The barren areas were the “most exciting” finding, said first author Sriram Sankararaman of HMS and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. “It suggests the introduction of some of these Neanderthal mutations was harmful to the ancestors of non-Africans and that these mutations were later removed by the action of natural selection.”

The team showed that the areas with reduced Neanderthal ancestry tend to cluster in two parts of our genomes: genes that are most active in the male germline (the testes) and genes on the X chromosome. This pattern has been linked in many animals to a phenomenon known as hybrid infertility, where the offspring of a male from one subspecies and a female from another have low or no fertility.

“This suggests that when ancient humans met and mixed with Neanderthals, the two species were at the edge of biological incompatibility,” said Reich, who is also a senior associate member of the Broad Institute and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Present-day human populations, which can be separated from one another by as much as 100,000 years (such as West Africans and Europeans), are fully compatible with no evidence of increased male infertility. In contrast, ancient human and Neanderthal populations apparently faced interbreeding challenges after 500,000 years of evolutionary separation.

“It is fascinating that these types of problems could arise over that short a time scale,” Reich said.

A lasting heritage

The team also measured how Neanderthal DNA present in human genomes today affects keratin production and disease risk.

Neanderthal ancestry is increased in genes affecting keratin filaments. This fibrous protein lends toughness to skin, hair, and nails and can be beneficial in colder environments by providing thicker insulation, said Reich. “It’s tempting to think that Neanderthals were already adapted to the non-African environment and provided this genetic benefit to humans,” he speculated.

The researchers also showed that nine previously identified human genetic variants known to be associated with specific traits likely came from Neanderthals. These variants affect diseases related to immune function and also some behaviors, such as the ability to stop smoking. The team expects that more variants will be found to have Neanderthal origins.

The team has already begun trying to improve their human genome ancestry results by analyzing multiple Neanderthals instead of one. Together with colleagues in Britain, they have developed a test that can detect most of the approximately 100,000 mutations of Neanderthal origin they discovered in people of European ancestry; they are conducting an analysis in a biobank containing genetic data from half a million Britons.

I VOLUNTEER.

“I expect that this study will result in a better and more systematic understanding of how Neanderthal ancestry affects variation in human traits today,” said Sankararaman.

As another next step, the team is studying genome sequences from people from Papua New Guinea to build a database of genetic variants that can be compared to those of Denisovans, a third population of ancient humans that left most of its genetic traces in Oceania but little in mainland Eurasia.

How did I find this story? Funny story.
A moron on tumblr who doesn’t understand evolution. For lolz;

SJWsdon'tdoDarwinwtfhowfacepalmingsrsly
No one told them Neanderthals had high IQs and ginger hair. Hush. Don’t spoil it for them.
Let them drone on about discredited Afrocentrist ‘racial purity’ pipedreams. And evolution is a constant process for the record. “We are changing the main narrative. Neanderthals were just as adaptable and in many ways, simply victims of their own success.” How’s Africa doing on the global scale compared to every other country? Still rape and murder capital of the world? Hmm.

Modern humans still bred with Neanderthals

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26435-thoroughly-modern-humans-interbred-with-neanderthals.html

(And killed, and ate.)

The oldest DNA of a modern human ever to be sequenced shows that the Homo sapiens who interbred with the Neanderthals were very modern – not just anatomically but with modern behaviour including painting, modern tools, music and jewellery.

Some previous estimates had placed the first interspecies liaison much earlier, before the emergence of these features. The new DNA sequence shows it actually happened in the middle of an age called the Initial Upper Palaeolithic, when there was an explosion of modern human culture.

– because of them. They taught us.

About 2 per cent of many people’s genomes today is made up of Neanderthal DNA, a result of interbreeding between the two species that can be seen in everyone except people from sub-Saharan Africa. The so-called Ust’-Ishim man, named after the town in western Siberia where he was found, carries a similar proportion of Neanderthal DNA in his genome as present-day Eurasians, and a combination of radiocarbon and genetic dating shows he died only about 45,000 years ago.

…The Initial Upper Palaeolithic was a period around 50,000 years ago when complex stone and bone tools appeared across Eurasia, along with body ornamentation like pierced shells and animal teeth, pigments and even musical instruments, says team member Tom Higham of the University of Oxford. It is unknown which human-like species made these sophisticated artefacts, but the finding that Ust’-Ishim man was in Siberia at this time means that it could have been modern humans, he says.

It isn’t. You know it isn’t.

“This is very exciting research that shows again the remarkable power of ancient DNA analysis to help solve seemingly intractable questions in human evolution science,” says Darren Curnoe from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

By comparing Ust’-Ishim’s genome to various groups of modern and ancient humans, the researchers are filling in gaps in the map of initial human migrations around the globe. They found that he is as genetically similar to present-day East Asians as to ancient genomes found in Western Europe and Siberia, suggesting that the population he was part of split from the ancestors of both Europeans and East Asians, prior to their divergence from each other.

Uhuh…

“He represents a group that settled Siberia and then disappeared without leaving descendants,” says Curnoe. “This tells us that as early humans left Africa and settled Eurasia they weren’t all successful. There were more populations than we thought, some making no contribution to living people at all.” He notes this could make it difficult to interpret human fossils found in Eurasia, since we cannot assume that they are our ancestors.

Fuck. You.
There’s no reason to bring Africa into this at all, yet you do. There is negative evidence that Africa was NOT involved. Fuck. You.

But while Ust’-Ishim man does not appear to have any modern-day direct descendants living today, he is more genetically similar to present-day East Asians than to present-day Europeans. This finding is consistent with a recently proposed theory that present-day Europeans may have got some of their ancestry from later groups that weren’t part of the initial migration into the area. “It supports that very strongly,” says Reich, one of the researchers who developed the idea.

Yes, Europe is special.
See all our culture for further information.

Homo sapiens is believed to have taken on Neanderthal DNA from at least two bouts of interbreeding. While sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA, Asian populations have more than Europeans. [DS: cough cough IQ]

Exactly, the Africa comment was wrong. There is a LACK of evidence, a definitive NO.

“We know that there are likely to have been at least two admixture events into the ancestors of present-day people – the shared event early during modern human migration out of Africa, and a second event into the ancestors of present-day Asians,” says Kelso.

How are you so fucking stupid to keep dragging Out of Africa into this?
We have proof for the latter. Genomic proof.
There is negative evidence for the former. No genetic ties whatsoever. And still, you cling.

Because there are only a few of these longer stretches, they were unable to precisely date when this later interbreeding may have happened. But whatever the date, it seems humans and Neanderthals found each other irresistible, or at least mated with each other fairly commonly, whenever we inhabited the same areas. “The timing is most likely simply a result of the fact that this is where the two groups overlapped geographically and temporally,” says Kelso.

Rather fair-skinned, aren’t they? Didn’t they have red hair? Isn’t that a recessive trait?
So, if these guys came from Africa AT ALL, they couldn’t possibly have that many recessive traits.

Out of Africa has been repeatedly demonstrated as false because they keep having to add to it. It’s now Out of Africa more than once, which defeats the core of theory, a single migration pattern!
Multi-regional Hypothesis is supported by all the evidence! All of it! It predicted all these ‘surprising’ migration flows and multiple forms of ‘human’ genome!

In 2000, the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence of “Mungo Man 3” (LM3) of ancient Australia was published indicating that Mungo Man was an extinct subspecies that diverged before the most recent common ancestor of contemporary humans. The results, if correct, supports the multiregional origin of modern humans hypothesis.[27][28]

and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#Competing_hypotheses

The multiregional hypothesis, initially proposed by Milford Wolpoff, holds that the evolution of humans from H. erectus at the beginning of the Pleistocene 1.8 million years BP has been within a single, continuous worldwide population. Proponents of multiregional origin reject the assumption of an infertility barrier between ancient Eurasian and African populations of Homo. Multiregional proponents point to the fossil record and genetic evidence in chromosomal DNA.

You mean, actual science.

One study suggested that at least 5% of the human modern gene pool can be attributed to ancient admixture, which in Europe would be from the Neanderthals.[74] But the study also suggests that there may be other reasons why humans and Neanderthals share ancient genetic lineages.[75][76]

All this new evidence into Neanderthals show these doubters of MRH are wrong.

The bones of contention in anthropology

A wide swathe of our understanding of human and human-like origins is limited by practical factors. Chief among those is excavation permissions. London has full layers of history underneath it, but when any new site is found it is usually kept a secret to keep renovation costs down (no need to bring in experts for removal). It used to be that the first modern archeological digs were in Africa, because the land is so undeveloped anyway, it was cheap, and later in the Middle East (primarily the Victorian’s obsession with Egypt).

Scientific theories follow the evidence, or they should do, in theory.

Due to this constraint, OOA, which stands for the Out of Africa model was developed. This theory called Africa the Cradle of Life for all of humanity, long before we had a proper knowledge of genetics. It was useful to the Victorians (yes, it’s a Victorian theory) to support their practice of slavery and the expansion of the Empire to assist the ‘devolved’, later “noble savages”, as part of the Christian mission, which held all peoples to be worthy of help as long as they accepted God’s word.

The tribes and small villages encountered were backward in many ways. Witchcraft, cannibalism, torture, gang-rape…

When the passage to the Orient (Asia) was fully opened and easily accessible, archeology began in full there too. Denisovans were discovered, a highly advanced race on par with Neanderthals. We’d now call them Eurasian, geographically. No one is certain what happened to them, a combination of war and outbreeding (miscegenation). To this day, plenty of Europeans and Asians carry traces of Denisovan DNA, as non-Africans tend to carry traces of Neanderthal. The latter was different enough from modern humans, Homo Sapiens to merit classification as a distinct species, although given new knowledge of interbreeding with Europeans primarily, this is incorrect. You see, the species/racial divide is created by fertility potential. As Neanderthals could and did interbreed with us, they could not correctly be considered a separate species, but a race of humanity. The same goes for Denisovans, and they seem as advanced in some ways as Neanderthals, despite the scant information we have on them. Recently, Denisovans have been inaccurately subsumed into the Homo Sapiens classification because they raised uncomfortable questions about intelligence and their carbon dating, which contradicts the OOA model.

OOA has been rewritten a number of times by frauds now in an effort to retain exorbitant foreign aid funding to Africa with the excuse that we owe Africa our existence as the Cradle of Life. The facts no longer support this. In fact, the negative evidence of non-African DNA at all completely refutes OOA to any true scientific mind observing. Its objective existence is proof of the fraud, yet it is still pushed as fact because of the foreign interest in keeping the NGO money flowing. The theory supported by the evidence is the MRH or Multi-Regional Hypothesis. MRH is exactly what it sounds like, there were many races which developed across all/multiple continents and most of these remain to this day while others (Denisovan, Neanderthal) were driven to extinction. OOA is to anthropology what creationism is to biology. With MRH, however, these different races still living would each require public acknowledgement and protection. Savvy readers know that probably isn’t going to happen.

Either humanity is a very broad umbrella term encompassing the entire spectrum of intellect and ability, or we must ignore most forensic evidence since the 1800s to keep the hippies happy.