- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cambridge: Anglo-Saxons aren’t real
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:00 pm to blueboy
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:00 pm to blueboy
quote:Sure it is. The ancestors of Neanderthalensis (Heidelbergensis) just left a bit earlier and took a different route (through the Levant).
So, 'all modern humans come from Africa' isn't exactly accurate.
I've read speculation that Neanderthals were blonde. That would be a kick, wouldn't it?
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:There are no neanderthal fossils in Africa. I mean, I guess if you want to go back to shite, maybe find where the first amphibian crawled out of the water.
Sure it is. The ancestors of Neanderthalensis (Heidelbergensis) just left a bit earlier
Anyway, modern sub-saharan Africans have no shared DNA with them, is all.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:09 pm to blueboy
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 10:29 pm
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:10 pm to blueboy
quote:
Its teaching aims to “dismantle the basis of myths of nationalism” by explaining that the Anglo-Saxons were not a distinct ethnic group, according to information from the department.
This comes across as a step towards attempting to dehumanize whites by chipping away at European history so as to say nothing of value ever came from it.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:11 pm to blueboy
quote:Correct. But there ARE heidelbergensis fossils in Africa. The current theory is that Heidelbergensis was the last common ancestor shared by Neanderthalensis and H. Sapiens sapiens.
There are no neanderthal fossils in Africa
A wave of heidelbergensis left Africa something like 300,000 years ago, and they later evolved into Neanderthalensis in Eurasia. The heidelbergensis who remained in African would have evolved differently, because they would have continued to interbreed with the other archaic human species still extant in Africa at the time. As I recall, there were three or four others still extant at that time.
The Denisovans present interesting questions. Clearly, they predate the Sapiens migration. Are they also descended from heidelbergensis, or are they descended from the still-earlier wave of H. Antecessor?
Or the STILL earlier wave of H. Erectus?
quote:With Neanderthalensis? Correct. But modern Africans ARE descended from heidelbergensis.
Anyway, modern sub-saharan Africans have no shared DNA with them
Something else fascinating? Modern East Asians have 20% more Neanderthalensis DNA than modern Europeans, though Neanderthalensis lived only in Europe, the Levant and parts of the Near East.
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:11 pm to RazorbackLaw501
quote:He does the exact same passive aggressive shite in every thread. Just remember he supports pedos (yes, really) and you know all you need to.
I'm sorry man, but I wouldn't even try seriously talking to people like him.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:22 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
What did you do now? You riled some dipshit up so much he logged in to post on his 11 year old account with 800 posts.
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 9:23 pm
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:24 pm to blueboy
My DNA report says otherwise.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:27 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:I suspect that it may be NIH, actually. I see some similarities in posting style. Is he banned at the moment?
What did you do now? You riled some dipshit up so much he logged in to post on his 11 year old account with 800 posts.
The problem is that NIH is brighter than this guy. Unless this is NIH drunk.
He also has some similarities to that yahoo from San Diego that caught a permaban about a year ago. SDVTiger or something like that?
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 9:31 pm
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:36 pm to blueboy
quote:
Everyone on earth except sub-Saharan Africans has Neanderthal DNA.
Except the remnants of that DNA are including in non-coding portions.
Also, there are several other homo populations that coincided with homo sapiens, with varying admixture.
quote:
Neanderthals are also said to have been more intelligent than their human contemporarie
Nonsense.
quote:
all modern humans come from Africa' isn't exactly accurate
You fricking idiot, humans, even the ones with Neaderthal DNA, share 99.9% of the genome with one another, which translates to around 100-120 genes.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:45 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Not at all. Many believe that. The evidence of their sophistication goes back farther, especially the aforementioned musical instrument, a flute. plus, they had much larger brains.
Neanderthals are also said to have been more intelligent than their human contemporarie
Nonsense.
quote:K. All other humans have about 5% Neanderthal DNA. SS Africans don't.
Except the remnants of that DNA are including in non-coding portions.
Also, there are several other homo populations that coincided with homo sapiens, with varying admixture.
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 9:54 pm
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:52 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
suspect that it may be NIH, actually. I see some similarities in posting style. Is he banned at the moment?
No clue. I can't recall any interactions with him so I'm not familiar with his style.
quote:
He also has some similarities to that yahoo from San Diego that caught a permaban about a year ago. SDVTiger or something like that?
Doesn't sound like him to me. This wasn't one of his hot buttons.
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:55 pm to blueboy
quote:
Not at all.
It is.
quote:
Many believe that.
Like who?
quote:
The evidence of their sophistication go back farther
Like what?
quote:
plus, they had much larger brains
Which isn't correlated to intelligence specifically, especially when the brain measurements are so close, as the difference on average is less than 5%.
Homo sapiens are exceedingly robust, and likely outcompeted other homo species through several features, ranging from minute differences in sexual adaptations to the ability to withstand several harsh environs to possibly sociological adaptations.
Regardless, please stop talking about archeogenetics. You are very stupid.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 9:56 pm to blueboy
quote:
All other humans have about 5% Neanderthal DNA. SS Africans don't.
Again, they are in non-coding portions. They aren't expressed at the molecular level.
Define for me discretely what the effect of this DNA is on the populations that do have that DNA.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:04 pm to Jorts R Us
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 10:29 pm
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:05 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:These guys
Many believe that.
Like who?
Apparently, the rate of Neanderthal brain growth was originally overestimated and now is believed to be as slow as humans, which they say increases the peak learning potential. With that in mind, and considering the larger brain, they think it's very possible they were smarter.
quote:this, for example
Like what?
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:06 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:You're not a fricking geneticist. Suck dicks.
Again, they are in non-coding portions. They aren't expressed at the molecular level.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:11 pm to blueboy
quote:
You're not a fricking geneticist. Suck dicks.
Lol bitch I have a MD/Ph.D. Population genetics is definitely my purview. And I remain right. There isn't a specific 'gene' that was exclusive to Neanderthals that has entered into the human genome. Again, the portions of the human genome that show evidence of admixture between the two population sets includes only non-coding portions.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 10:14 pm to crazy4lsu
Okay, I'll trust you instead of all those other guys. 
Popular
Back to top



1




