Are we really 100% Human?

[Harte]

I agree. The Bible verse in question sometimes is translated "Heros", or "Giants", or "Nephilim". But, to my thinking, I'd consider people like Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Solomon... To be "giants" of their ages. Just as we have "giants" in entertainment today, and in finance, and politics, and industry.

It means giant.

However, in Aramaic the noun naphil(a) does exist. It means "giant," making it easy to see why the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) translated nephilim as gigantes ("giant").

Heiser.

Harte

[Rafterman]

I'm 95% human, 5% awesomesauce.

[+Hammerclaw]

Native Americans were often referred to as giants because they were so much taller and well nourished compared to the stunted, malnourished Europeans that first encountered them.

[+DieChecker]

It means giant.

Heiser.

Harte

While that is true. It does not mean the word was used only to mean a physical giant. It may still have been used to refer to mental giants, political giants, or religious giants.

Unless you want to specifically state that people back then did not use similes?

[Benfornow]

I have never heard of a hybird human but we share such a large percentage of DNA with an ape that makes me wonder.

[redhen]

I have never heard of a hybird human but we share such a large percentage of DNA with an ape that makes me wonder.

50% of our DNA is identical to banana sequences.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/what-is-the-evidence/morphology/dna-molecules/

[Ogbin]

Yes. The answer is yes we 100% human. What else could we possibly be? A fox is a fox just as a rose is a rose and as I recall all a leopard can't change it's spots. Sorry to be the burster of bubbles but somebody had to do it.

[Harte]

While that is true. It does not mean the word was used only to mean a physical giant. It may still have been used to refer to mental giants, political giants, or religious giants.

Unless you want to specifically state that people back then did not use similes?

They may have, but I certainly don't think this is an example of that.

These are stories, not events. It's okay to make up giants - remember Paul Bunyan.

Harte

[+DieChecker]

They may have, but I certainly don't think this is an example of that.

These are stories, not events. It's okay to make up giants - remember Paul Bunyan.

Harte

Never met Paul, but saw a giant statue of him once in Idaho, or Montana, can't remember which. I did hear many of his stories.

[toyomotor]

Scientific evidence shows that humans existed within the same time frame as neanderthals, and even in the bible, other humanoids were described to have inhabited the earth, so my question is, are we really "human"? If you think about it, since there are so many genetic variations among humans, it is very likely that we could all be mixed with different humanoids. So maybe, we are not as human as we think...

Well, no.

Scientists now say that many of us contain traces of both Neanderthal and Denisovan genes, proving for one and for all that there was interbreeding between the species.

[+DieChecker]

Well, no.

Scientists now say that many of us contain traces of both Neanderthal and Denisovan genes, proving for one and for all that there was interbreeding between the species.

Which also begs the question..... If Modern Humans and Neanderthal, and Denisovan could interbreed.... Are they really different species?

[Davros of Skaro]

We are 100% Stardust along with everything else around us while on a blue speck of dust in a vast sea of Stars.

[Harte]

Which also begs the question..... If Modern Humans and Neanderthal, and Denisovan could interbreed.... Are they really different species?

Interbreeding does not mean that two species are the same.

That is, inability to breed with another species is not a criterion for species.

Harte

[Bavarian Raven]

Native Americans were often referred to as giants because they were so much taller and well nourished compared to the stunted, malnourished Europeans that first encountered them.

Not all Europeans in not all eras. The Norse explorers and traders of the 1000s to 1300s would have been giants to the native Americans.

Interbreeding does not mean that two species are the same.

That is, inability to breed with another species is not a criterion for species.

Harte

Depends which definition of a species you use. There are several

[Harte]

Depends which definition of a species you use. There are several

Any that use reproductive isolation as criterion have to make exceptions. For example, ring species.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

Which also begs the question..... If Modern Humans and Neanderthal, and Denisovan could interbreed.... Are they really different species?

Depends on what one uses as a definition, but since H. sapiens don't appear to share the same yDNA or mtDNA haplogroups with Neanderthals or Denisovans and what is actually shared are portions of nuclear DNA then that IMO doesn't suggest they're the same species. What it does suggest is that they are sister species that are close enough to pass on some degree of genetic material, much like the equine example of a horse and donkey to make a mule, but also limited to producing only fertile females and very rarely a fertile male.

cormac

Edited June 30, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[Kenemet]

Scientific evidence shows that humans existed within the same time frame as neanderthals, and even in the bible, other humanoids were described to have inhabited the earth, so my question is, are we really "human"? If you think about it, since there are so many genetic variations among humans, it is very likely that we could all be mixed with different humanoids. So maybe, we are not as human as we think...

That's kind of like asking "are bears 100% bear?"

From a genetic standpoint, "human" is described as "any member of the genus 'homo'." This includes H. neanderthalensis, h. ergaster, h. sapiens, h. denisovian, etc. Younger species develop from older species and will always have some genetic material from their parent species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29#Species

[toyomotor]

Depends on what one uses as a definition, but since H. sapiens don't appear to share the same yDNA or mtDNA haplogroups with Neanderthals or Denisovans and what is actually shared are portions of nuclear DNA then that IMO doesn't suggest they're the same species. What it does suggest is that they are sister species that are close enough to pass on some degree of genetic material, much like the equine example of a horse and donkey to make a mule, but also limited to producing only fertile females and very rarely a fertile male.

cormac

Precisely.

In most of us, the Neanderthal and Denisovan yDNA is so minute as to be pretty much undetectable.

But Denisovan cal be more readily detected in ancient peoples such as the Australian Aborigines, and some people of south east Asia.

[Atlantisresearch]

Depends on what one uses as a definition, but since H. sapiens don't appear to share the same yDNA or mtDNA haplogroups with Neanderthals or Denisovans and what is actually shared are portions of nuclear DNA then that IMO doesn't suggest they're the same species. What it does suggest is that they are sister species that are close enough to pass on some degree of genetic material, much like the equine example of a horse and donkey to make a mule, but also limited to producing only fertile females and very rarely a fertile male.

cormac

The problem with any genetic argument is inadequate sampling. Neanderthal mtDNA has only been extracted from a handful of specimens, and human mtDNA when compared in these studies has been taken from only a few hundred living individuals. Therefore any claim regarding Neanderthal mtDNA and modern human mtDNA isn't conclusive of anything. In fact it borders pseudo-science when you try to equate only a hundred or so individuals to a population of over five billion people, this is one major flaw in the "mtDNA Eve" theory:

“Cann et al. (1987) used 18 African Americans and only 2 donors in Africa to represent the 500 million people of this continent, a manifestly inadequate sample. Indeed, some felt that the total sample of individuals (fewer than 150) was too small to be representative of the 5.5 billion peoples of the globe”.

- "The Bearing of Fossils and Mitochondrial DNA on the Evolution of Modern Humans, with a Critique of the 'Mitochondrial Eve' Hypothesis" Phillip V. Tobias. The South African Archaeological Bulletin. Vol. 50, No. 162 (Dec., 1995), pp. 155-167

Edited June 30, 2014 by Atlantisresearch

[cormac mac airt]

The problem with any genetic argument is inadequate sampling. Neanderthal mtDNA has only been extracted from a handful of specimens, and human mtDNA when compared in these studies has been taken from only a few hundred living individuals. Therefore any claim regarding Neanderthal mtDNA and modern human mtDNA isn't conclusive of anything. In fact it borders pseudo-science when you try to equate only a hundred or so individuals to a population of over five billion people, this is one major flaw in the "mtDNA Eve" theory:

- "The Bearing of Fossils and Mitochondrial DNA on the Evolution of Modern Humans, with a Critique of the 'Mitochondrial Eve' Hypothesis" Phillip V. Tobias. The South African Archaeological Bulletin. Vol. 50, No. 162 (Dec., 1995), pp. 155-167

You might want to tell that to the geneticists currently doing such work since, at present, there are 3500+ mtDNA haplogroups/subgroups that they are aware of. And while you are right in that there are not a large quantity of mtDNA samples for Neanderthals none of the extant samples are a match for any of the 3500+ haplogroups/subgroups previously mentioned.

BTW, perhaps someone didn't tell you but it is now 2014 and your citations are 19 - 27 years outdated. Alot has happened since then.

cormac

[Atlantisresearch]

You might want to tell that to the geneticists currently doing such work since, at present, there are 3500+ mtDNA haplogroups/subgroups that they are aware of. And while you are right in that there are not a large quantity of mtDNA samples for Neanderthals none of the extant samples are a match for any of the 3500+ haplogroups/subgroups previously mentioned.

BTW, perhaps someone didn't tell you but it is now 2014 and your citations are 19 - 27 years outdated. Alot has happened since then.

cormac

Little has changed since Cann et al (1987). They used 150 people in 1987 for "mtDNA eve", yet the most recent studies don't exceed a few thousand samples - still inadequate for an estimated 5. 5 - 6 billion living individuals. There is also no "large quantity of mtDNA samples for Neanderthals". The number was only 17 in 2008 (Green et al) and is not much higher now, probably 20 - 25. This issue of ridiculously small samples aside, there are many other problems. Some geneticists cluster the mtDNA of Neanderthals with modern humans, other do not. So how can this be? It is all speculation, nothing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_phylogenetics#Limitations_of_molecular_systematics

[Harte]

Little has changed since Cann et al (1987). They used 150 people in 1987 for "mtDNA eve", yet the most recent studies don't exceed a few thousand samples - still inadequate for an estimated 5. 5 - 6 billion living individuals. There is also no "large quantity of mtDNA samples for Neanderthals". The number was only 17 in 2008 (Green et al) and is not much higher now, probably 20 - 25. This issue of ridiculously small samples aside, there are many other problems.

There are plenty of problems, true.

We need more Neanderthals. But the modern human sample population is more than enough to be considered representative of all humans.

In statistics, you don't need all that many samples. Less than 10,000 in a world population of 7 billion will get you somewhere near 90% confidence levels. As long as you spread the sampling around (not from just a handful of geographic areas.)

Harte

[+DieChecker]

One theory on Neanderthals is that there never was more then 20,000 of them alive at any one point in time. And they were spread out from Spain to the Urals, to the Middle East. We're luck to have found the amount of bones we have.

If there was only 20,000 people living in North America, so that there were less then 1000 individuals per US State, I think that finding their remains after 500,000 years might prove a challenge.

[Bavarian Raven]

One theory on Neanderthals is that there never was more then 20,000 of them alive at any one point in time. And they were spread out from Spain to the Urals, to the Middle East. We're luck to have found the amount of bones we have.

I believe even further east then the Urals now...

But that being said, while there numbers were low, that seems to be a little too low...IMHO. But thats just me.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I don't know about you lot, but I'm not human at all, I'm a sentient squid called Sydney.