"unless you are a fascist of our current regime" ?? I'm not following you.

@Captain_Feelgood I'm talking about believers in and followers of the Orange Turd.

@DenoPenno You poor thing you... The amount of TDS you must have to link those two subjects is rather amazing.. Sad, but amazing.

@Captain_Feelgood Hey, Captain. It's trump that needs that binky.

Sometimes, but not always.

@Spudgun What examples can you offer of successful crossbreeds that can perhpaps form a new species of their own?

@p-nullifidian There have been some examples of crossbreeds between lions and tigers. Not very many, but there have been a few. I have seen pictures of that as well as stories in technical journals. I have also read in some Archological journals of crossbreeds between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens.

dogs and wolves. brown and polar bears. Cattle and bison, cattle and damed near any bovine species. that's off the top of my head, the sterile hybrid is the analomy in nature, not the rule.

It depends on how close they are genetically. For instance almost all dog breeds can produce fertile offspring when interbred. Most Boyotes and wolves are too far apart genetically to interbreed, however, in the late 20th century, a breed of southwestern coyotes managed to wander into Canada and hte Northeast United States where they found a breed of wolf thish when interbreeding took place produced fertile offspring, producing the "Coywolf" which is a species that exists now is the whole northeast of North America.

It is all a matter of just how different or similar the genes are.

With modern humans, if blood types are too different, when the women becomes pregnant, if she isn't given treatment she will lose the child and not be fertile with her husband for the rest of her life.

Going back to the first example of the dogs, even though dogs vary greatly in their appearance, theri genetic differences are very small. With humans, even though they may look greatly different form evolutionary divergence, the actual genetic differences can still be very small. Virtually all humans whose ancestors came from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East have about 3% Neanderthal DNA. Those people who do nto have hairy bodies or whose men do not have hair growth on their faces generally have a lower percentage of Neanderthal DNA, or may not have any at all.

@snytiger6 Thank you (and @glennlab and @Spudgun) for the biology primer, much appreciated.

Very strange that you choose to use a book full of bullshit and verses that don't say anything about interbreeding to support scientific research that doesn't need bullshit support?

@Mofo1953 And it came to pass, during the Age of Legends, men would wax eloquent and create tall tales filled with great mysteries, wonders and imagination, which would, many centuries later, be rightly categorized as bullshit.

The only things that are "documented" in Genesis are unsubstantiated fairy tales. The Bible is NOT a history book!

@Fit-50something The entire bible belongs in the fiction section of any bookstore or library.

@Mofo1953 Yes, the bible is bullshit. However, soem stories are based on tales passed down for generations. I do recall some tales about men breeding with "giants", which supposedly angered god. The tales could be based on humans interbreeding with evoulutionary differentiated humans. Written language is only about 6,000 years old, and before that tales that got passed down by word of mouth would have changed over time. So, a human line with evolutionary differentiation which was generally larger, over time, may have become "giants".

The only exception to tales beign passed down by word of mounth with little change I have ever heard of was that the religions of Southwest Native Americans that have the "Thunder god" was very similar to the per-Buddhist religions of Tibet, and modern science has schown that they are also genetically linked in that they share descendants. So, some 10,000-20,000 years ago a tribe split wheere one part ended up in Tibet and the other part wandered over the ice bridge into North America However, somehow they managed to keep the stories mostly consistent over all that time despite it beign passed down by word of mouth over all of that time. I've never heard of (or read of) any other such case liek that.

@snytiger6 my point is, why use hearsay that does not even support an alibi in court, when they have extensive DNA data to support their findings?

I think you mean 'Denisovan'.. Devonian was a period in time.

@Captain_Feelgood Of course I do! I will blame that on a typo...and change it to the correct spelling,...thanks!

@Marionville Hate it when that happens...

Mick Jagger.......

I understood all non-African ethnicities had a small percent of Neanderthal DNA. Has this information been refined only to Europeans?

Atlantis is drawn from an allegory of Plato referring to the futility of grandiosity. I don’t think it’s in The Republic, possibly Timaeus.

There is the theory, that many human ancestors were "water apes". This is based on the idea that other apes most often only stand on two legs when in the water, and that other mamals tht lack hair on their bodies spend a lot of time in the water. Although this theory has not ever really gained traction, it did lead to the idea of "water births" which was a trend in the late 20th century. Water births did usually hve much fewer complications, but required a lot more expense and equipment and th etrend died with rising medical costs.

Anyway, to me, the idea of a part of human evolution taking place in and around water makes sense to me. If dolphins and whales were once land mammals which moved back into the sea, and seals live both on land and water, it seems like a viable theory to me that one line of apes (pre-humans) used water for safety at some point and lost body hair to move through water more easily. Then somethign changed to move them back onto land. Perhaps crocodiles moved into the area makign the water less safe.

@Geoffrey51 Thank you and you may be spot on. I meant to refer to the theoretical aspects of its existence.

@snytiger6 Interesting! Thanks for the share. I prefer the perfectly balanced world that people refused to abandon, even as it went under theory. It's a little more hopeful
I have to say, I almost lost it in confusion, when you started talking about births and medical equipment. I digress, and think, that has always been one of the most insane things before 'prime preventative assisting measures' society has ever pushed. One of the most unneeded things in the 'natural' world is medical equipment for births. For eons our ancestors either naturally made it, or did not.
Today more unnatural things lead to more unnatural births while the babies are saved to live in an unnatural society. .

Dark hair = human. Red hair = Neanderthal.

@Sofabeast Gray hair = silverback mountain gorilla?

@LimitedLight No, I think she just looked at my picture...

Neanderthal DNA is associated with less back hair, not more. That's one of the variants 23&me found in my genome.

@KJThomas A good theory while it lasted.

Then we would be talking more than one beginning. Which is even more confusing and mystifying due to the savage nature of pale-skins, above all other groups (no offense), and the lack of intelligence among the masses beyond and within the group.

@AnTwanSr
I take your editorial meaning and as a matter of non-scientific argument, I get it. But just for an FYI:

I take you mean lack of intelligence as an editorial on human actions, especially recently. No human group on the planet has demonstrated any more or any less intelligence than any other group. Development is more a matter of necessity and access to resources than ability.

Dkin color is a matter of sexual selection and geographic adaptation. There is no such thing as a biological/genetic marker for race in humans. Everybody carries gemes from almost every group on the planet in our genome. Human migration throughout our history, mixed intermarriage and inter-breeding has spread every groups genes around. There is no such thing as a pure group or race. Even Native Americans brought genetic material from all over Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe when they emigrated.

@t1nick That is partially what I meant. When I refer to 'lack of intelligence of the masses' that includes all of us as one group. What part is non-scientific?
I don't know much about the genes, genome, dna, etc. I have learned that only a melanin enriched woman, without a pale skinned donor, has the ability to birth a pale skinned offspring, while a non-melanin woman cannot birth a child with melanin without a melanin enriched father to help.
Meaning humans have always been "so called" mixed from the beginning. Although the start of it all is still in question. So I agree' One race the human race and which includes what is considered Human Kind. Like a lot of things this could also be debatable depending on what line of logic the definitons follow. However,
The American historical facts show, due to the brainwashing in America, and the power it has given to mostly pale-skins, the rich, and gov. also known as the American leading majority, the abuse against humans has topped the charts. American Chattel enslavement, Wars, Oppression, to the Prison industrial Complex. Americans (mostly pale-skinned power position holders) have the done more damage then any known group that has existed on the planet. I'm not trying to be right about this. This is historical and present evidence. I would like to know proof of another group or tribe that has historically or presently committed more damage. Please enlighten me if you know.

@AnTwanSr

As a high school science teacher, I do not know where you got the melanin example. It's nothing I've ever came across before.

As for the dominance and atrocities bestowed by the white race, I agree. This is called ",white privilege" and will generaklybend as the other marginalized groups get numbers sufficiently to reverse the trend. I give it another 10 years and it cannot happen too soon.

This white privilege disease is a hold over from Colonialization and European Imperialism. At a time when European Nations sought to control and rule the world. European Imperialism was predicated on considering all colonies as inferior. It didn't really begin to end until Great Britain got out of India and India and Pakustan became their own Nations again.

@seenoevil9620

They exist but on a smaller scale, mostly a geographically localized phenomenon.

@t1nick Geographic adaptations by themselves are fascinating.

@freeofgod

Genetic drift, sexual selection within the population, mutation, adaptation and Natural selection. All are at work

@LimitedLight

Why are we still talking skin color. This is a superfluous conversation. If a group lives in specific geographic location over multiple generations, melanin production come about naturally and accordlingly. If it doesn't and the population remains on this location, they become evolutionarily unfit and go extinct.

If they live near the equator they will produce more melanin to protect against excessive UV Ray's from increased sunlight. If they are in the northern or southern latitudes, they will produce less melanin to increase access to UV in producing Vitamin D. This will occur through Natural selection, adaptation, and sexual selection. Given the article, skin color is superflous

@seenoevil9620, @t1nick This is why we share. I am no official document holder but I have searched and studied enough to put some, if not most educators to shame when dealing with certain areas of interest. I'm not sure what you agree with me on. "White Privilege" is not the reason Caucasians whom claim to be Europeans after invading Europe, are recorded as the most vicious group of human-kind to exist.
"White Privilege" is the label given to describe the reality of some, if not most, of the aftermath.
I agree on there being no short time limit to change the reality without the worst of the worst happening, but, I do know simply obtaining groups will reverse the trend.
Along with the many things that will logically balance our society. The terms themselves have to be discredited, shamed, illegal, and eradicated.
There is no other way.

@seenoevil9620, @t1nick, @freeofgod I agree!

@seenoevil9620, @t1nick, @freeofgod, @LimitedLight Not sure on the answer or what you seem to be hinting at. It is logical to think the earliest humans were the first on the planet due to the perfect, or near perfect weather conditions. Also logical that some were driven away or simply ventured out. Either-way , I'm 100% sure climate conditions play a huge part in how humans and human-kind adapt, look, and think.

@seenoevil9620, @freeofgod, @LimitedLight, @t1nick Not entirely true mi' amigo'. Anytime the words "prehistoric, DNA,' comes up we should be mindful of 'all' details. How else will the truth be told?

@AnTwanSr

This is partially true. But the weather was anything but perfect. Our early erectus ancestors were driven into the Horn of Africa - Eritrea because of the climate. They survived along the coast and adapted to harvesting the sea which was a new strategy in their survival arsenal. When the climate eased, they migrated up into the Middle East following the coast until they reached the area around Kiev. At which time the broke apart, some went to the East onto Asia, some went West into Europe. This took thousands of years of step by step migration

The group the reached Europe ran into the glacial ice sheets of the Pleistocene. By now the are becoming Homo sapien sapien through evolution and adaptation. It is probably in central Europe they encountered the Neanderthals. Neanderthals were adapted to the colder climate closer to the ice sheets edge, but less adaptable as the ice retreated.

All organism respond to the environment. If major climatic shifts occur the organism must adapt, migrate or go extinct. Evolution is about a species being evolutionarily "fit" to survive and successfully propagate itself. When they become "unfit" they perish as a species.

@t1nick Interesting. By this logic humans and human-kind would have two separate origins. Which further means there is not just one link missing from the evolution theory but two or maybe more. Confusing as it sounds I think we were better off believing that there was only one definite group and place of origin.

@AnTwanSr

It seems that Africa does seem to be the birth place of the human species. But as would make sense there several groups and perhaps several cosely related species of humans humans wandering the continent. Recent discoveries in Morocco puts early humanoids in that area at the same time as the previously recognized species in East Africa.

@t1nick Africa? What is now known as Africa is not the same cover of land it was before the invaders renamed the continent. Plus the science seems to be going through serious skewed or backwards claims since money is influencing the "said' evidence aka politricks. Its a shame because this is a part of science only a few can confirm, lie about, or be completely shut out of.

@AnTwanSr

Sorry AnTwanSr, you mix politics with science. Of course there is politics within the world if science. But not the type that you are conflating.

No continent is exactly the same as plate tectonics is constantly changing them.But in essence Africa by in large is the same 400,000 years ago as it is today barring changes in climate, desertification, and modification of the surface by humans.

Your arguments, while having valid points should remain either scientific or political. Your combing the two the way you are is making for a confused argument. Thus diminishing your arguments.

@t1nick I see why it appears as if, I'm conflating, but I'm not. I would like to keep politics out of science but we both know that has not been the case. Terminology alone proves this.
The theory of now called African continent not changing for 400K years may be on point, but,
why did you stop at 400K years?
We can go deeper with the so called scientists that have been caught in bogus claims and that would seriously be derailing from the topic. As if we haven't already, but I just like to remind people that theoretical science is not hard science. It's no more than an guess by someone whom sometimes brought themselves the position and/or title.

@AnTwanSr

True theoretical science is not necessarily hard science. In my experience, Chemitry and Physicss were considered the hard sciences because they depended more explosively upon quantitatively based evidence. Although there is theoretical Chemistry and theoretical physics because of the realm in which they operate and the impossibility of getting first hand hard evidence.

In the past most behavioral science were considered softer sciences because they relied more upon qualitative evidence in opposition to quantitative evidence. But even in 1978 when I got my archaeology degree that was already changing. Most research uses and applies hard science, quantitative methods, combined in some cases with qualitative methods.

Regardless, all research (of any import) use solid scientific procedures. We have been talking around the field of Paleoanthropolgy. Most of the hard evidence is partial and sometimes sparse. But the science used to make their assertions are based on solid scientific methodology and procedures. Paleoanthropologist rely upon geology for provenance, palynology for diet and associated climate association, biometrics and physical anthro for physical measurements on the skeletal pieces, computer tomography, etc. Its a multi-disciplinary approach.

In the early in the evolution of the field, many scientific technologies were not yet available, do they used a lot of intuition. They made a lot of mistakes. The field is a lot like paleontology (my other degree) in that they operate from partial evidence, but use multiple scientific technologies to ascertain their hypotheses.