Are we really 100% Human?

[+DieChecker]

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

Hey Syd. Good to meet ya!

[cormac mac airt]

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

I'd say familytreedna.com, as an example, has that minimum more than sufficiently covered as it currently has 179,365 mtDNA records in its database. And of the currently known 607+ groups specifically under haplogroup L found in the last 27 years (Atlantisresearch's Cann et al. (1987) reference) not one person let alone group of people have ever been shown to belong to a group that wasn't either haplogroup L or a descendant group of same.

cormac

Edited July 1, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[Harte]

Excellent point.

Harte

[Frank Merton]

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

And I'm a fish called Frank. I haven't bred with any humans though (wouldn't know how).

[toyomotor]

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

I'm not a scientist, but the way I see it, Neanderthals and Denisovans were different models of the same car.

AMH (Anatomically Modern Humans) are the very latest model. But the way all three were designed, some essential parts are interchangeable.

Iow, they were different versions of what we know today as humans. I suppose anthropologists wouldn't agree, but that's how I explain it.

[Frank Merton]

I think it is plain that if they were able to mix genes (i.e., interbreed) then they were the same species as we are.

However I'm not sure that is settled. That some populations of humans have some of their genes might be simply that these genes were present much earlier and persisted independently.

[cormac mac airt]

I think it is plain that if they were able to mix genes (i.e., interbreed) then they were the same species as we are.

However I'm not sure that is settled. That some populations of humans have some of their genes might be simply that these genes were present much earlier and persisted independently.

That would work if it was a two-way proposition, that is a Male Neanderthal/Female Hss or Female Neanderthal/Male Hss with the results of both being offspring fully capable of reproducing. This however doesn't appear to be the case.

cormac

[+DieChecker]

I think it is plain that if they were able to mix genes (i.e., interbreed) then they were the same species as we are.

However I'm not sure that is settled. That some populations of humans have some of their genes might be simply that these genes were present much earlier and persisted independently.

Then everyone is going to have the argument about Mule/Donkey/Horse or Lion/Tiger/Lyger and what separates a species.

Edited July 5, 2014 by DieChecker

[toyomotor]

Then everyone is going to have the argument about Mule/Donkey/Horse or Lion/Tiger/Lyger and what separates a species.

Yes, it's not quite as simple as I explained it.

But not being a scientist, I've always thought that Peking Man, Heidelbergensis etc were all just early versions of what turned evolved into AMH.

I'm probably wrong, so if anyone can explain it in simple terms I's be happy to read it.

[Bavarian Raven]

what separates a species.

Or which definition of a species you prefer.

Because there are many :/

[Atlantisresearch]

Or which definition of a species you prefer.

Because there are many :/

There's at least 50 species concepts, but only one is non-arbitrary: Mayr's Biological Species Concept (reproductive isolation). However the BSC only works when testing non-dimensional (i.e. single point in time and space) individuals. It doesn't work when you test an individual and then argue like Mayr did that an individual is representative of a population, because you then run into a 'gene leakage' problem.

[Atlantisresearch]

Yes, it's not quite as simple as I explained it.

But not being a scientist, I've always thought that Peking Man, Heidelbergensis etc were all just early versions of what turned evolved into AMH.

I'm probably wrong, so if anyone can explain it in simple terms I's be happy to read it.

I don't think any palaeo-anthropologist disputes H. erectus was human; the dispute surrounds the taxonomic status of the Habilines and the Australopithecines. Some regard the Habilines to be transitional between H. erectus and Australopithecus, e.g. H. habilis, but others regard the Habilines to be Australopithecines. Likewise, there are different views on the Australopithecines. Some regard them to be ancestral human, others as a human side-branch, while others as an ape, or belonging to a seperate lineage.

[GigglyRedhead]

I don't know if someone else has mentioned this, maybe but anywho!

There was an excellent episode of Nova on a few weeks ago, about how we are really co-mingled with Neanderthal...that our races combined at one point. I don't remember the name of this episode, though.

[Harte]

There's at least 50 species concepts, but only one is non-arbitrary: Mayr's Biological Species Concept (reproductive isolation). However the BSC only works when testing non-dimensional (i.e. single point in time and space) individuals. It doesn't work when you test an individual and then argue like Mayr did that an individual is representative of a population, because you then run into a 'gene leakage' problem.

7 species of Larus Gulls, approximate locations shown:

Any gull in group 3 (for example) can and will breed with any gull in either group 2 or group 4.

However, a gull in group 2 cannot breed with a gull in group 4.

Harte

[Bennu]

The Rh Negative blood type people are alien hybrids.

[shrooma]

QUOTE-

Are we really 100% Human?

.

s#!t yeah.

you think you aren't...?

you think you're subhuman?!

.

good luck with that.

.

[cormac mac airt]

The Rh Negative blood type people are alien hybrids.

No, they're not. And being one (AB Negative) it's pretty safe to say I'm as completely human as everyone else.

cormac

[toyomotor]

Emerging evidence is that not only do many AMH share Neanderthal genes, but also Denisovan.

If this makes them 100% human, it beats me. Were Neanderthals human?

[jeem]

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...

We are homo sapiens sapiens.

[+Hammerclaw]

We are the sum total of our ancestors. We probably inherited light skin, red hair and bagpipes from the Neanderthals.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

No, they're not. And being one (AB Negative) it's pretty safe to say I'm as completely human as everyone else.

cormac

Thats what you wan't us to think

[Harte]

Emerging evidence is that not only do many AMH share Neanderthal genes, but also Denisovan.

If this makes them 100% human, it beats me. Were Neanderthals human?

Any species with Homo in front of its name is, by definition, human.

Harte

[Bennu]

No, they're not. And being one (AB Negative) it's pretty safe to say I'm as completely human as everyone else.

cormac

Could be right. I read something about Rh negative blood types being alien hybrids. However, what about the fact that humans aren't able to be out in the sun for more than a few hours without burning? Why did our skin not evolve to be suited to the earth's sun? Admittedly black people can probably tolerate a lot of sun but white people sure can't. It's the same sun all over the earth so it doesn't even matter if we evolved in the caucasus mountains or whatever. We don't have enough hair to keep warm in places without much sun but our skin can't take much sun either. Looks to me like we really evolved on another planet with a dimmer sun, meaning further away from the planet or a smaller star. We should really be covered in fur to protect our skin but we're not. Doesn't make sense. How did we get so hairless? Wait a minute, aliens are also hairless. You don't suppose...

Edited August 5, 2014 by Bennu

[cormac mac airt]

Could be right. I read something about Rh negative blood types being alien hybrids.

Well then, you've read someone elses BS and have repeated it as fact. It never was.

Why did our skin not evolve to be suited to the earth's sun?

It did. Why do you think the skin colorations of black, brown, red, yellow, and white came into being? Each works rather well in the areas where those of a specific color lived for thousands of years.

However, what about the fact that humans aren't able to be out in the sun for more than a few hours without burning?

Seriously? Would you like to try again? I'm a Caucasian male who doesn't burn but who very much tans out in the sun. In fact I'm the darkest one in my family during the summer.

It's the same sun all over the earth so it doesn't even matter if we evolved in the caucasus mountains or whatever.

It may be the same sun but not everywhere gets the same amount of solar radiation which is what necessitates, over very long periods of time, a change in skin color.

We should really be covered in fur to protect our skin but we're not.

We actually shouldn't. Science has shown (Rogers, Iltis and Wooding, 2004--Genetic Variation at the MC1R Locus and the Time since Loss of Human Body Hair) that with the loss of long body hair amongst our ancestors some 1.2 million years ago our skin color became black as an adaptation to the solar radiation from where we started, which was Africa. With our movement out of Africa, over 10's of thousands of years, we've adapted to the current setup with the five 'racial' colors of black, white, red, brown and yellow. Each of which is a long term adaptation to the areas of which each 'race' originates. There's nothing alien/ET about it.

cormac

[+DieChecker]

Emerging evidence is that not only do many AMH share Neanderthal genes, but also Denisovan.

If this makes them 100% human, it beats me. Were Neanderthals human?

I think what I read was that the only modern humans without Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA hybridization are rural sub-saharan Africans.