All you did was found something to support what you already believe, so I did the same.
Recent genetic research have demonstrated that the Out-of-Africa (OoA) model with no interbreeding fails to explain nuclear DNA diversity in Eurasia. Several models of interbreeding that do explain this diversity exists today. It therefore is quite likely that Neanderthals contributed to the Caucasian genome. Aspie-quiz have demonstrated in a large survey in the US population that Afroamericans have only 1/6 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians. The same survey also indicates that Asians and American Indians have about 1/2 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians.
http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm
As I have explained scientist are continuing to debate and argue over this and nothing has really been debunked, it continues to be up in the air. We have Caucasian scientist that can’t deal with the idea that their own science reveals they have more DNA from a lesser species then Africans. It is those scientists that publish material leaning towards Humanoid and Neanderthal inbreeding as not possible. But even when you read their articles they do not 100% commit to the idea.
We also have Caucasian scientist that can handle the idea that they have more DNA of a lesser species then Africans. These are the scientist that publish material leaning towards the idea that there was Human and Neanderthal inbreeding. And when you read their articles they sound surer, even linking and presenting evidence that can’t be explained by those that reject the idea.
This is what you were suppose to do in researching it
for yourself. I look closely at both arguments then I set back and mediate / think / contemplate the perception and ask myself what does one or the other have to gain?
After doing this I meditate on observation. What do my eye see and what have I been told? What does common since tell me?
After examining all the options, I lean more towards the scientist that suggest Caucasians come from African and Neanderthal inbreeding.
Now our next step in the conversation would be for me to ask you some questions about the big observation or what we have been told.
But since you did not do your own contemplation of these matters like you were suppose to when I asked you to Google some terms, I guess we are stuck.
Or are you feeling up to answering some questions without doing your own contemplation?
Believe me you will not be the first person to engage in a topic with me without doing a meditation / observation / contemplation session first.
If so then I will start with the questioning. We can ask them one at a time back and fourth.
My first question…..
Did you jump on the no inbreeding between Humans and Neanderthal bandwagon because it was published in a black magazine?
'Out Of Africa' Theory Boost: Skull Dating Suggests Modern Humans Evolved In Africa
Modern Humans Evolved in Africa!!!
ScienceDaily (Jan. 12, 2007) — Reliably dated fossils are critical to understanding the course of human evolution. A human skull discovered over fifty years ago near the town of Hofmeyr, in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, is one such fossil. A study by an international team of scientists led by Frederick Grine of the Departments of Anthropology and Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University in New York published in Science magazine has dated the skull to 36,000 years ago. This skull provides critical corroboration of genetic evidence indicating that modern humans originated in sub-Saharan Africa and migrated about this time to colonize the Old World. (Science January 12, 2007)
"The Hofmeyr skull gives us the first insights into the morphology of such a sub-Saharan African population, which means the most recent common ancestor of all of us - wherever we come from," said Grine.
Although the skull was found over half a century ago, its significance became apparent only recently. A new approach to dating developed by Grine team member Richard Bailey and his colleagues at Oxford University allowed them to determined its age at just over 36,000 years ago by measuring the amount of radiation that had been absorbed by sand grains that filled the inside of the skull’s braincase. At this age, the skull fills a significant void in the human fossil record of sub-Saharan Africa from the period between about 70,000 and 15,000 years ago. During this critical period, the archaeological tradition known as the Later Stone Age, with its sophisticated stone and bone tools and artwork appears in sub-Saharan Africa, and anatomically modern people appear for the first time in Europe and western Asia with the equally complex Upper Paleolithic archeological tradition.
In order to establish the affinities of the Hofmeyr fossil, team member Katerina Harvati of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, used 3-dimensional measurements of the skull known to differentiate recent human populations according to their geographic distributions and genetic relationships. She compared the Hofmeyr skull with contemporaneous Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe and with the skulls of living humans from Eurasia and sub-Saharan Africa, including the Khoe-San (Bushmen). Because the Khoe-San are represented in the recent archeological record of South Africa, they were expected to have close resemblances to the South African fossil. Instead, the Hofmeyr skull is quite distinct from recent sub-Saharan Africans, including the Khoe-San, and has a very close affinity with the European Upper Paleolithic specimens.
The field of paleoanthropology is known for its hotly contested debates, and one that has raged for years concerns the evolutionary origin of modern people. A number of genetic studies (especially those on the mitochondrial DNA) of living people indicate that modern humans evolved in sub-Saharan Africa and then left between 65,000 and 25,000 years ago to colonize the Old World. However, other genetic studies (generally on nuclear DNA) argue against this African origin and exodus model. Instead, they suggest that archaic non-African groups, such as the Neandertals, made significant contributions to the genomes of modern humans in Eurasia. Until now, the lack of human fossils of appropriate antiquity from sub-Saharan Africa has meant that these competing genetic models of human evolution could not be tested by paleontological evidence.
The skull from Hofmeyr has changed that. The surprising similarity between a fossil skull from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction.
Reference: F.E. Grine, R.M. Bailey, K. Harvati, R.P. Nathan, A.G. Morris, G.M. Henderson, I. Ribot, A.W.G. Pike. Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa and Modern Human Origins. Science, 12. January 2007
----------
Europe's Ancestors: Cro-Magnon 28,000 Years Old Had DNA Like Modern Humans
Black Cro-Magnon the ancestors of White Europeans
ScienceDaily (July 16, 2008) — Some 40,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons -- the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern -- entered Europe, COMING FROM AFRICA. A group of geneticists, coordinated by Guido Barbujani and David Caramelli of the Universities of Ferrara and Florence, shows that a Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as anatomically.
The Cro-Magnoid people long coexisted in Europe with other humans, the Neandertals, whose anatomy and DNA were clearly different from ours. However, obtaining a reliable sequence of Cro-Magnoid DNA was technically challenging.
"The risk in the study of ancient individuals is to attribute to the fossil specimen the DNA left there by archaeologists or biologists who manipulated it," Barbujani says. "To avoid that, we followed all phases of the retrieval of the fossil bones and typed the DNA sequences of all people who had any contacts with them."
The researchers wrote in the newly published paper: "
The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is understood as it should be understood then this will verify the claim that was present in a different post when I was talking about mtDNA L0,L1,L2 ... From this point I mentioned L3 and its subgroups ... M & N. M&N are otherwise known as L3M & L3N ... these are the children of the Africans...
The Cro-magnon has no relationship to the Neanderthal tho they may have co-existed and lived in close quarter to each other.
Now personally I'm also of the belief that SOME of them come from monkeys or apes but that's a different discussion for a different day.
Peace and Blessings
