PDA

View Full Version : Ancient Humans Bred with Completely Unknown Species



Jesse
07-06-2014, 11:15 AM
A new study presented to the Royal Society meeting on ancient DNA in London last week has revealed a dramatic finding – the genome of one of our ancient ancestors, the Denisovans, contains a segment of DNA that seems to have come from another species that is currently unknown to science. The discovery suggests that there was rampant interbreeding between ancient human species in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago. But, far more significant was the finding that they also mated with a mystery species from Asia – one that is neither human nor Neanderthal.

Scientists launched into a flurry of discussion and debate upon hearing the study results and immediately began speculating about what this unknown species could be. Some have suggested that a group may have branched off to Asia from the Homo heidelbernensis, who resided in Africa about half a million years ago. They are believed to be the ancestors of Europe's Neanderthals.

However others, such as Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the London Natural History Museum, admitted that they “don’t have the faintest idea” what the mystery species could be.

Traces of the unknown new genome were detected in two teeth and a finger bone of a Denisovan, which was discovered in a Siberian cave. There is not much data available about the appearance of Denisovans due to lack of their fossils' availability, but the geneticists and researchers succeeded in arranging their entire genome very precisely.

"What it begins to suggest is that we're looking at a 'Lord of the Rings'-type world - that there were many hominid populations," Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London.

The question is now: who were these mystery people that the Denisovans were breeding with?

Source (http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/ancient-humans-bred-completely-unknown-species-001059)

Sons of God perhaps?

seanD
07-06-2014, 12:03 PM
The world will likely propose some sort of extraterrestrial evoked species theory (assuming that the mystery DNA remains unexplained), before they believe anything Genesis has to say.

Jesse
07-06-2014, 12:09 PM
The world will likely propose some sort of extraterrestrial evoked species theory (assuming that the mystery DNA remains unexplained), before they believe anything Genesis has to say.

Isn't that the truth :(.

Manwë Súlimo
07-06-2014, 12:35 PM
You hear that? Scientists have confirmed we live in Middle-earth! My life hasn't been wasted!

seanD
07-06-2014, 01:23 PM
The world will likely propose some sort of extraterrestrial evoked species theory (assuming that the mystery DNA remains unexplained), before they believe anything Genesis has to say.

*evolved

Cow Poke
07-06-2014, 02:36 PM
A new study presented to the Royal Society meeting on ancient DNA in London last week has revealed a dramatic finding – the genome of one of our ancient ancestors, the Denisovans, contains a segment of DNA that seems to have come from another species that is currently unknown to science. The discovery suggests that there was rampant interbreeding between ancient human species in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago. But, far more significant was the finding that they also mated with a mystery species from Asia – one that is neither human nor Neanderthal.

Scientists launched into a flurry of discussion and debate upon hearing the study results and immediately began speculating about what this unknown species could be. Some have suggested that a group may have branched off to Asia from the Homo heidelbernensis, who resided in Africa about half a million years ago. They are believed to be the ancestors of Europe's Neanderthals.

However others, such as Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the London Natural History Museum, admitted that they “don’t have the faintest idea” what the mystery species could be.

Traces of the unknown new genome were detected in two teeth and a finger bone of a Denisovan, which was discovered in a Siberian cave. There is not much data available about the appearance of Denisovans due to lack of their fossils' availability, but the geneticists and researchers succeeded in arranging their entire genome very precisely.

"What it begins to suggest is that we're looking at a 'Lord of the Rings'-type world - that there were many hominid populations," Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London.

The question is now: who were these mystery people that the Denisovans were breeding with?

Source (http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/ancient-humans-bred-completely-unknown-species-001059)

Sons of God perhaps?

1029

Jesse
07-06-2014, 03:05 PM
1029

Heh. I love that guy. I wonder if aliens are responsible for that hair.

shunyadragon
07-07-2014, 05:22 AM
Unknown is simply unknown and not subject to alien or bestiality conjecture and conspiracies.

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 06:07 AM
Unknown is simply unknown and not subject to alien or bestiality conjecture and conspiracies.

Unknown is ALWAYS subject to conspiracies! :glare:

Juvenal
07-07-2014, 06:35 AM
Source (http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/ancient-humans-bred-completely-unknown-species-001059)

Actual source: Mystery humans spiced up ancients’ sex lives (http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-sex-lives-1.14196)


Sons of God perhaps?

The patriarch tales from Genesis derive from Mesopotamian populations that arose after the end of the last ice age, c. 10k years ago.


The results suggest that interbreeding went on between the members of several ancient human-like groups in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago, including an as-yet-unknown human ancestor from Asia.

As ever, Jesse

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 07:32 AM
Actual source: Mystery humans spiced up ancients’ sex lives (http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-sex-lives-1.14196)



The patriarch tales from Genesis derive from Mesopotamian populations that arose after the end of the last ice age, c. 10k years ago.


The results suggest that interbreeding went on between the members of several ancient human-like groups in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago, including an as-yet-unknown human ancestor from Asia.

As ever, Jesse

Every party needs a pooper that's why we invited you. :glare:

Jesse
07-07-2014, 08:37 AM
Actual source: Mystery humans spiced up ancients’ sex lives (http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-sex-lives-1.14196)



The patriarch tales from Genesis derive from Mesopotamian populations that arose after the end of the last ice age, c. 10k years ago.


The results suggest that interbreeding went on between the members of several ancient human-like groups in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago, including an as-yet-unknown human ancestor from Asia.

As ever, Jesse

All of it is conjecture until they get deeper into the genomes. I wouldn't hang my hat on just one. Does it have to be human? Nope. Part human? Sure.

whag
08-07-2014, 05:28 PM
All of it is conjecture until they get deeper into the genomes. I wouldn't hang my hat on just one. Does it have to be human? Nope. Part human? Sure.

It's realistic that we bred with other species. We have a propensity to multiply.


It's preposterous to think that species was the legend that Genesis describes. Angels are spirit. How would they have compatible reproductive apparatus with human beings?

Jesse
08-07-2014, 08:02 PM
It's realistic that we bred with other species. We have a propensity to multiply.


It's preposterous to think that species was the legend that Genesis describes. Angels are spirit. How would they have compatible reproductive apparatus with human beings?

J.P. (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gen6.php) makes a good case for angels (dimensional beings) in Genesis 6. Of course he is not the only one. We know nothing of the physical makeup of these beings so how would it be considered preposterous? The Bible states in many passages about angels having physical manifestations: Acts 12:5-12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+12%3A5-12&version=NIV), Genesis 19:1-7 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A1-7&version=NIV), Genesis 19:10-13 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A10-13&version=NIV).

So if they can touch you, eat with you etc. then yes, they can possibly manifest compatible sexual organs and sperm. I don't see how if angels (again dimensional beings) are real, any of this would be preposterous.

Cow Poke
08-07-2014, 08:05 PM
J.P. (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gen6.php) makes a good case for angels (dimensional beings) in Genesis 6. Of course he is not the only one. We know nothing of the physical makeup of these beings so how would it be considered preposterous? The Bible states in many passages about angels having physical manifestations: Acts 12:5-12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+12%3A5-12&version=NIV), Genesis 19:1-7 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A1-7&version=NIV), Genesis 19:10-13 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A10-13&version=NIV).

So if they can touch you, eat with you etc. then yes, they can possibly manifest sexual organs and sperm. I don't see how if angels (again dimensional beings) are real, any of this would be preposterous.

:yes: Demons are portrayed as disembodied spirits -- not angels.

Jesse
08-07-2014, 08:12 PM
Demons are portrayed as disembodied spirits -- not angels.

Exactly. If an angel becomes demonic, they become disembodied, i.e. separated from or existing without a body. The Bible does not declare the angels of Genesis 6 demonic. They were punished after the fact.

whag
08-08-2014, 10:30 AM
J.P. (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gen6.php) makes a good case for angels (dimensional beings) in Genesis 6. Of course he is not the only one. We know nothing of the physical makeup of these beings so how would it be considered preposterous? The Bible states in many passages about angels having physical manifestations: Acts 12:5-12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+12%3A5-12&version=NIV), Genesis 19:1-7 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A1-7&version=NIV), Genesis 19:10-13 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A10-13&version=NIV).

So if they can touch you, eat with you etc. then yes, they can possibly manifest compatible sexual organs and sperm. I don't see how if angels (again dimensional beings) are real, any of this would be preposterous.

Preposterous in the scientific sense. Biologists have no methodology to test for what you described.

I'd argue it's also preposterous in theological sense. It entails the belief that God unleashed horny inter-dimensional beings that can reproduce with human women. That doesn't happen by accident.

seanD
08-08-2014, 10:30 AM
Who says it had to be done via sexual reproduction. Technology doesn't evolve in the supernatural realm like it does in the human realm.

tabibito
08-08-2014, 10:34 AM
It's realistic that we bred with other species. We have a propensity to multiply.


It's preposterous to think that species was the legend that Genesis describes. Angels are spirit. How would they have compatible reproductive apparatus with human beings?
The genesis account says "sons of God". Lots of free-play with that term. Angels is only likely.

whag
08-08-2014, 11:16 AM
Who says it had to be done via sexual reproduction. Technology doesn't evolve in the supernatural realm like it does in the human realm.

Our sexual apparatus isn't "technology," for one. Second, the daughters were physical not metaphysical. They had primate wombs made of meat.

whag
08-08-2014, 11:21 AM
The genesis account says "sons of God". Lots of free-play with that term. Angels is only likely.

Lots of free play, indeed.

Sparko
08-08-2014, 11:24 AM
Ancient Humans Bred with Completely Unknown Species

Well that explains Rogue06! :idea:





:outtie:

seanD
08-08-2014, 11:50 AM
Our sexual apparatus isn't "technology," for one. Second, the daughters were physical not metaphysical. They had primate wombs made of meat.

I'm saying that if man today knows how to genetically manipulate the reproductive system of a female mammal, allowing for parthenogenesis, the sons of God could presumably do the same. Or who knows what technology they knew that we may not even know today.

Jesse
08-08-2014, 12:56 PM
Preposterous in the scientific sense. Biologists have no methodology to test for what you described.

I'd argue it's also preposterous in theological sense. It entails the belief that God unleashed horny inter-dimensional beings that can reproduce with human women. That doesn't happen by accident.

Of course biologists have no methodology. You would need to study an angels biology to come up with any conclusions. You will just have to wait until they capture one :ahem:. No it entails that God created beings that can manifest themselves physically. Since the Bible teaches that, I don't see the problem.

whag
08-08-2014, 01:32 PM
Of course biologists have no methodology. You would need to study an angels biology to come up with any conclusions. You will just have to wait until they capture one :ahem:. No it entails that God created beings that can manifest themselves physically. Since the Bible teaches that, I don't see the problem.

Granted, the bible teaches that enfleshment is a doddle for spirits. Anything's easy when you're a spirit, apparently. =P


It's kind of hokey, though. The sacredness of divine creation is diminished if any spirit can change from genderless spirit into the form of a male higher primate. That's godlike.

Can they become scorpions and squirrels, as well?

whag
08-08-2014, 01:40 PM
I'm saying that if man today knows how to genetically manipulate the reproductive system of a female mammal, allowing for parthenogenesis, the sons of God could presumably do the same. Or who knows what technology they knew that we may not even know today.

The sons of god manipulated female organs to be compatible with what exactly? Spiritual sperm?

Manwë Súlimo
08-08-2014, 02:00 PM
The sons of god manipulated female organs to be compatible with what exactly? Spiritual sperm?

I don't believe angels did consort with humans like Sean does, but I do believe angels can take on physical form and all that that entails.

But even if they did (and I don't think they did), the offspring would still be human. Human genes paired with human genes (which is what an angel would have to take on) equals human genes. It would make family reunions awkward and exciting but I don't think anybody would be getting super powers.

whag
08-08-2014, 03:19 PM
I don't believe angels did consort with humans like Sean does, but I do believe angels can take on physical form and all that that entails.

Why would God allow them to take human form and disguise themselves as an evolved primate? Could they also become antelopes?

Moreover, why would angels want to become lower than themselves?


But even if they did (and I don't think they did), the offspring would still be human. Human genes paired with human genes (which is what an angel would have to take on) equals human genes. It would make family reunions awkward and exciting but I don't think anybody would be getting super powers.

If they're just normal human beings, why are they giants?

Manwë Súlimo
08-08-2014, 04:17 PM
Why would God allow them to take human form and disguise themselves as an evolved primate? Could they also become antelopes?

Angels and humans can disobey God. But there are times in the Bible where angels did take form of human flesh on the behest of God.


Moreover, why would angels want to become lower than themselves?

Our fantastic eating establishments?




If they're just normal human beings, why are they giants?

I haven't really studied the references to giants in the OT, but it's entirely possible its a reference to their notoriety and not their physical size.

Jesse
08-08-2014, 04:31 PM
Granted, the bible teaches that enfleshment is a doddle for spirits. Anything's easy when you're a spirit, apparently. =P


It's kind of hokey, though. The sacredness of divine creation is diminished if any spirit can change from genderless spirit into the form of a male higher primate. That's godlike.

Can they become scorpions and squirrels, as well?

Maybe your idea of "The sacredness of divine creation" is flawed? And why would that be their problem? Again, we don't have one to study so we don't know anything. For all we know they could be created as hermaphrodites.

Tell me why they wouldn't be able too? Can Satan become a snake (not that I believe this idea)? You are very limited in your view of how divine beings ought to work. We as humans have no clue what they can and cannot do.

seanD
08-08-2014, 08:17 PM
The sons of god manipulated female organs to be compatible with what exactly? Spiritual sperm?

I know you'll probably try and lead me down a redundant rabbit trail with questions I obviously can't answer because of your obsession with this subject, but I probably won't respond after this. You're confusing what "spirit" means. "Spirit" doesn't mean non-material. It's merely used to separate the physical realms. It's related to the controversy in 1 Cor 15. Paul's use of "spiritual" didn't mean non-physical or non-material. He was using the word to distinguish natural from supernatural. It's very evident from scripture that the resurrected body of Christ was physical as are the angels, immortal but physical, and can interact with the natural world like humans can, though what exactly constitutes the exact substance they're made of is a supernatural mystery. Because they're physical, we can assume they may even have DNA in their physical makeup.

whag
08-15-2014, 06:32 AM
I know you'll probably try and lead me down a redundant rabbit trail with questions I obviously can't answer because of your obsession with this subject, but I probably won't respond after this.

I'm not obsessed with this subject, but I do find your belief that demons cavorted with human beings interesting.


You're confusing what "spirit" means. "Spirit" doesn't mean non-material. It's merely used to separate the physical realms. It's related to the controversy in 1 Cor 15. Paul's use of "spiritual" didn't mean non-physical or non-material. He was using the word to distinguish natural from supernatural.

Okay.


It's very evident from scripture that the resurrected body of Christ was physical as are the angels, immortal but physical, and can interact with the natural world like humans can, though what exactly constitutes the exact substance they're made of is a supernatural mystery. Because they're physical, we can assume they may even have DNA in their physical makeup.

I'm not arguing that demons can't be flesh. I'm just puzzled by your belief God created horny angels. Think about that. The transformation of an angel with no sexual organs into a mammal with evolved reproductive apparatus is huge.

I understand Jesus morphing into a primate. There's deep and painful justification for that transformation, the Bible says. What I don't understand is why that was relatively common. Conveniently, all those shenanigans stopped relatively recently in the history of the planet, which is why we don't see such activity today.

If you're gonna believe something that bizarre, you may as well accept the true news that God made you a primate. There's actually evidence for that, which is exciting.

Jesse
08-15-2014, 09:10 PM
I'm not arguing that demons can't be flesh. I'm just puzzled by your belief God created horny angels. Think about that. The transformation of an angel with no sexual organs into a mammal with evolved reproductive apparatus is huge.

I am not sure why you think they have to have been made horny by God. Are we made horny or do we become horny? But regardless, no one said anything about the angels being horny except you. This very well could have been genetic warfare on their part to disrupt Gods plan for humanity.

A dimensional being mimicking the biology of a human would not be that difficult to do. No more than a seahorse changing it's sex.

Manwë Súlimo
08-15-2014, 09:23 PM
I love this forum. We're now talking about angel libidos.

whag
08-16-2014, 11:47 AM
I love this forum. We're now talking about angel libidos.

Isn't it awesome? Angels acting like furry-chested guidos.

whag
08-16-2014, 02:44 PM
I am not sure why you think they have to have been made horny by God. Are we made horny or do we become horny?

Ask that about any biological drive. Are we made hungry or do we become hungry?



But regardless, no one said anything about the angels being horny except you. This very well could have been genetic warfare on their part to disrupt Gods plan for humanity.

That's absurd. They were in the ineffable presence of God, so they couldn't have thought that would work. You're arguing that God created very stupid beings with extraordinary power.


A dimensional being mimicking the biology of a human would not be that difficult to do. No more than a seahorse changing it's sex.

If incarnation is such a doddle, then why aren't they doing that now?

Jesse
08-16-2014, 05:39 PM
Ask that about any biological drive. Are we made hungry or do we become hungry?




That's absurd. They were in the ineffable presence of God, so they couldn't have thought that would work. You're arguing that God created very stupid beings with extraordinary power.



If incarnation is such a doddle, then why aren't they doing that now?

So why isn't your question "why would God make horny creatures at all"?

Well the angels did rebel against a God they had known since before time. Would you not consider that stupid? It's called freewill.

How would I know why it isn't being done now? Or even if it isn't? I am not sure why you think a humans biological/sexual structure is so complicated that it can't be reproduced. WE are close to being able to do now that. How much harder would it be for a much more intelligent dimensional being?

whag
08-17-2014, 06:08 AM
So why isn't your question "why would God make horny creatures at all"?

Because a libinous shrew isn't anything approaching an angel with god-like powers, for one.


the angels did rebel against a God they had known since before time. Would you not consider that stupid? It's called freewill.

It's deeper than stupid. It would be profoundly delusional to mount a usurpation of authority with that knowledge. That's actually one reason I reject Islamic and Judaic explanations for the origin of moral and natural evil.


How would I know why it isn't being done now? Or even if it isn't? I am not sure why you think a humans biological/sexual structure is so complicated that it can't be reproduced. WE are close to being able to do now that. How much harder would it be for a much more intelligent dimensional being?

If they could do that, one wonders why mere possession tickles their fancy.

Jesse
08-17-2014, 08:31 AM
Because a libinous shrew isn't anything approaching an angel with god-like powers, for one.



It's deeper than stupid. It would be profoundly delusional to mount a usurpation of authority with that knowledge. That's actually one reason I reject Islamic and Judaic explanations for the origin of moral and natural evil.



If they could do that, one wonders why mere possession tickles their fancy.

The Bible tells us that we were made a little lower than the angels. They are hardly God-like.

We as humans are just as stupid with our choices. But again, it's freewill. And freewill makes us do some pretty dumb things. Should be no different for angels. I am not sure why we are still having this discussion if you don't believe any of this to begin with. It's like I am ramming my head against a brick wall.

You are getting angels mixed up with demons. Demons are disembodied spirits. These angels did not become that. They were punished differently for these acts.

whag
08-17-2014, 09:11 AM
The Bible tells us that we were made a little lower than the angels. They are hardly God-like.

If angels can take any biological form they want, that is god-like.


We as humans are just as stupid with our choices. But again, it's freewill. And freewill makes us do some pretty dumb things.

If freewill "makes" you do dumb things, it isn't free.



Should be no different for angels. I am not sure why we are still having this discussion if you don't believe any of this to begin with. It's like I am ramming my head against a brick wall.

The heavenly environment is entirely different than the earthly environment. Angels were in the ineffable presence of God. Hence, they had to know any plan to usurp His power would be like a kitten taking on a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Human beings, however, developed in a more ambiguous way, with God not being nearly as evident. There's a huge dissimilarity.



You are getting angels mixed up with demons. Demons are disembodied spirits. These angels did not become that. They were punished differently for these acts.

That's some punishment allowing them to morph into human beings, have sex with fair women, and procreate.

RC Sproul has a more naturalistic, sensible interpretation of that passage.

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/who-are-sons-god-and-daughters-men-genesis-6/

Your interpretation is fantastic, implying the earth is overrun by children who are the seed of bad angels.

Jesse
08-17-2014, 07:13 PM
Your interpretation is fantastic, implying the earth is overrun by children who are the seed of bad angels.

There is of course no implication of such a thing if you understand genetics. You seem to think there are super human alien hybrids running around. But I won't stop you from believing that.

If you had read anything about what ancient Israelites believed and taught about Genesis 6, you would know R.C. Sproul's interpretation is incorrect.

seanD
08-17-2014, 11:15 PM
The sons of Seth theory has been debunked many times over. Not only is it full of holes, but as Jesse pointed out, it was never the original interpretation. The funny thing is that the inerrant Christians who accept the theory of the sons of Seth are in a dilemma with the epistle of Jude.

whag
08-18-2014, 09:38 AM
The sons of Seth theory has been debunked many times over. Not only is it full of holes, but as Jesse pointed out, it was never the original interpretation. The funny thing is that the inerrant Christians who accept the theory of the sons of Seth are in a dilemma with the epistle of Jude.

You must be under the impression that the original interpretations of scripture are always the only interpretations. If the ancient Israelites really knew what was happening here, there wouldn't be so much ambiguity and room for interpretation in the text.

The funny part is actually wide disparity in biases believers hold and why they hold them. Why is it particularly important, the powers that angels have? Why does Sproul not want demons (he calls them demons) to be able to have sex with and procreate with women?

Rushing Jaws
07-25-2015, 05:50 AM
A new study presented to the Royal Society meeting on ancient DNA in London last week has revealed a dramatic finding – the genome of one of our ancient ancestors, the Denisovans, contains a segment of DNA that seems to have come from another species that is currently unknown to science. The discovery suggests that there was rampant interbreeding between ancient human species in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago. But, far more significant was the finding that they also mated with a mystery species from Asia – one that is neither human nor Neanderthal.

Scientists launched into a flurry of discussion and debate upon hearing the study results and immediately began speculating about what this unknown species could be. Some have suggested that a group may have branched off to Asia from the Homo heidelbernensis, who resided in Africa about half a million years ago. They are believed to be the ancestors of Europe's Neanderthals.

However others, such as Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the London Natural History Museum, admitted that they “don’t have the faintest idea” what the mystery species could be.

Traces of the unknown new genome were detected in two teeth and a finger bone of a Denisovan, which was discovered in a Siberian cave. There is not much data available about the appearance of Denisovans due to lack of their fossils' availability, but the geneticists and researchers succeeded in arranging their entire genome very precisely.

"What it begins to suggest is that we're looking at a 'Lord of the Rings'-type world - that there were many hominid populations," Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London.

The question is now: who were these mystery people that the Denisovans were breeding with?

Source (http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/ancient-humans-bred-completely-unknown-species-001059)

Sons of God perhaps?TLOTR does make clear that marriages between Men and Elves could and did take place. According to TLOTR, there are no Elves now. Problem solved. Denisovans sound like something from Star Trek.

shunyadragon
07-29-2015, 02:32 PM
Based on the present evidence present day humans are the product of hybridization of different related subspecies and possibly closely related species, like Neanderthals. I do not think the Neanderthals have been determined as subspecies or a separate species. This hybridization occurred in different waves of migration out of Africa of closely related humanoids.

shunyadragon
07-30-2015, 09:11 AM
New studies on Aboriginal DNA reveals more on the hybridization that lead to modern humans



First Aboriginal genome sequenced

This comparison revealed a patchwork in which some populations, including Australian Aboriginals, bore varying levels of Denisovan DNA, while many of their neighbors, like the residents of mainland Southeast Asia, contained none.

Stoneking says that this pattern hints at at least two waves of human migration into Asia: an early trek that included the ancestors of contemporary Aboriginal Australians, New Guineans and some other Oceanians, followed by a second wave that gave rise to the present residents of mainland Asia. Some members of the first wave (though not all of them) interbred with Denisovans. However, the Denisovans may have vanished by the time the second Asian migrants arrived. This also suggests that the Denisovan's range, so far linked only to a cave in southern Siberia, once extended to Southeast Asia and perhaps Oceania.

"Put together, these two papers make an overwhelming case for multiple waves of migration," says David Reich, a population geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, an author on the second study.

Alan Redd, a biological anthropologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, says that the peopling of Australia may have been more complicated than either paper suggests. Dingoes, for instance, were brought to the island continent by humans who arrived in the last 5,000 years. "It's certainly possible that people were trickling in at different times," he says.

Mor
10-31-2015, 05:39 AM
If we want to find a connection with the Bible and that there were a lot of species of humans and we were weak and not large people, that let's cite this one:
Ezek 16:6


“And when I passed by you and saw you struggling in your own blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ Yes, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ 7 I made you thrive like a plant in the field; and you grew, matured, and became very beautiful. Your breasts were formed, your hair grew, but you were naked and bare.

shunyadragon
11-01-2015, 05:17 AM
If we want to find a connection with the Bible and that there were a lot of species of humans and we were weak and not large people, that let's cite this one:
Ezek 16:6

References like these in the Bible are a product of ancient myth and legend. References such as these offer nothing constructive in the modern world and science. Again the evidence is clear that the evolution of humanity included a number of closely related subspecies that migrated out of Africa over a period of time. There is no evidence of any other mixing of species outside the closely related varieties and subspecies of humans.

Mor
11-01-2015, 10:46 AM
References like these in the Bible are a product of ancient myth and legend. References such as these offer nothing constructive in the modern world and science. Again the evidence is clear that the evolution of humanity included a number of closely related subspecies that migrated out of Africa over a period of time. There is no evidence of any other mixing of species outside the closely related varieties and subspecies of humans.A book is never meant to be used as an evidence, though I know it is sometimes used. The reason I provided the cite is that if we want to find a place in the Bible that in a few paragraphs describes the history of contemporary humankind, take note of that cite. The evidence you provide is very unclear to me also, no more than the book.

For example, let's assume hypothetical situation. (This is just an experiment!) A humankind lived on a planet, then moved to another planet, then moved to the third planet, and in some time they live on planet D. What your D scientists will know about the history of humankind, if they rely on only books and archaeology? I know the answer. Do you? That is why I think that the method is flawed, regardless on the actual history, whether they live on one planet or on 10 planets.

shunyadragon
11-01-2015, 11:02 AM
A book is never meant to be used as an evidence, though I know it is sometimes used. The reason I provided the cite is that if we want to find a place in the Bible that in a few paragraphs describes the history of contemporary humankind, take note of that cite. The evidence you provide is very unclear to me also, no more than the book.

What is involved is not 'contemporary' history. It is the paleolithic history of the evolution of humanity going backmillions of years to prehumen primates. The genetic and morphological evidence is clear concerning the descent and origins of humanity.


For example, let's assume hypothetical situation. (This is just an experiment!) A humankind lived on a planet, then moved to another planet, then moved to the third planet, and in some time they live on planet D. What your D scientists will know about the history of humankind, if they rely on only books and archaeology? I know the answer. Do you? That is why I think that the method is flawed, regardless on the actual history, whether they live on one planet or on 10 planets.

Hypothetical situations with no supporting evidence, and outside the known evidence, are not seriously worth considering. Actually the evolutionary history of humanity is not based on books nor archeology. It is based on the fossil and genetic evidence. Archeology only deals with the relatively contemporary history of humanity since the Neolithic. There is no evidence for a relationship nor contact with aliens from other planets.

rogue06
11-01-2015, 11:30 AM
A book is never meant to be used as an evidence, though I know it is sometimes used. The reason I provided the cite is that if we want to find a place in the Bible that in a few paragraphs describes the history of contemporary humankind, take note of that cite. The evidence you provide is very unclear to me also, no more than the book.

For example, let's assume hypothetical situation. (This is just an experiment!) A humankind lived on a planet, then moved to another planet, then moved to the third planet, and in some time they live on planet D. What your D scientists will know about the history of humankind, if they rely on only books and archaeology? I know the answer. Do you? That is why I think that the method is flawed, regardless on the actual history, whether they live on one planet or on 10 planets.
Why can't a book be considered evidence? Case in point, for years the English physician William Harvey is credited with discovering the pulmonary circulation of blood with his 1628 book Exercitatio Anatomica de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus ("An Anatomical Exercise on the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Living Beings") being offered as evidence. Centuries later, after a book by the 13th century Arab physician Ibn al-Nafis called Sharh al Tashreeh al Qanoon ("Commentary on the anatomy of Canon of Avicenna") was found in the early 20th century it demonstrated that al-Nafis had made this discovery nearly 300 years earlier.

Mor
11-01-2015, 12:21 PM
shunyadragon, I already tell you in another thread that "evidences" are not transmitted and are nonsense when used without subject. I am glad that some seers see and maybe even they are right to some extent, but sorry, I think the method is wrong and flawed.

Mor
11-01-2015, 12:38 PM
rogue06, the reason the book was written was perhaps to teach students and communicate with other scientists. When this book is used as proof who made discovery first it is a perversion and not what this book is written for. The Bible also, is written to teach, not to judge, for example.

shunyadragon
11-01-2015, 05:27 PM
shunyadragon, I already tell you in another thread that "evidences" are not transmitted and are nonsense when used without subject. I am glad that some seers see and maybe even they are right to some extent, but sorry, I think the method is wrong and flawed.

Evidences in science ore objectively observed within the subject of the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

Just asserting the method is flawed is anecdotal and does not make it so. The computers and the communication system we use are a clear witness to the success of the methods you question.

'Maybe some seers?' and 'maybe they are right to some extent?' You need to do better than that to be meaningful.

Mor
11-02-2015, 12:20 PM
Just asserting the method is flawed is anecdotal and does not make it so. The computers and the communication system we use are a clear witness to the success of the methods you question.
I doubt you can do something for a long time and not have any success, no matter what method you choose and no matter how talented you are. Science is practice. But history is another story.

klaus54
11-08-2015, 11:53 AM
The world will likely propose some sort of extraterrestrial evoked species theory (assuming that the mystery DNA remains unexplained), before they believe anything Genesis has to say.

Regale us with your Genesis exegesis expertise mapped to the current consilient database of paleontological/anthropological/modern genetic knowledge.

shunyadragon
12-11-2015, 04:15 AM
More research has revealed our relationship with a previously little known sapien species.



Siberian cave was home to generations of mysterious ancient humans by Ann Gibbons

In 2010, scientists discovered a new kind of human by sequencing DNA from a girl’s pinky finger found in Denisova Cave in Siberia. Ever since, researchers have wondered when the girl lived, and if her people, called Denisovans, lingered in the cave or just passed through. But the elusive Denisovans left almost no fossil record—only that bit of bone and a handful of teeth—and they came from a site that was notoriously difficult to date.

Now, state-of-the-art DNA analysis on the Denisovan molars and new dates on cave material show that Denisovans occupied the cave surprisingly early and came back repeatedly. The data suggest that the girl lived at least 50,000 years ago and that two other Denisovan individuals died in the cave at least 110,000 years ago and perhaps as early as 170,000 years ago, according to two talks here last week at the meeting of the European Society for the study of Human Evolution. Although the new age estimates have wide margins of error, they help solidify our murky view of Denisovans and provide “really convincing evidence of multiple occupations of the cave,” says paleoanthropologist Fred Spoor of University College London. “You can seriously see it’s a valid species.”

Most of the cave’s key fossils come from a thick band of sandstone called layer 11. When researchers first dated animal bones and artifacts in this layer, the results varied widely, between 30,000 to 50,000 years ago. So Siberian researchers invited geochronologist Tom Higham of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom to re-date the sequence. Higham’s team collected and radiocarbon-dated about 20 samples of artifacts and animal bones with cut marks, which presumably were discarded by ancient humans. Sediments holding the finger bone, at the bottom of layer 11, came out right at the limit of radiocarbon dating, and are likely older than 48,000 to 50,000 years, reported postdoc and archaeologist Katerina Douka of Oxford.

Another dating expert at the meeting was cautious about these results. “How secure is the association of the Denisovans with the [dated] animal remains?” asked geochronologist Daniel Richter of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and Leuphana University in Lüneburg. But Douka stressed that the dates were from cut-marked animal bones and ornaments, and were consistent across three cave chambers.

The dates also fit with genetic evidence presented at the meeting that Denisovans were in the cave early. Researchers sequenced nuclear DNA from three molars from layer 11 and a child’s molar from a deeper layer, 22, according to a talk by graduate student Viviane Slon, who works in the lab of paleogeneticist Svante Pääbo at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (A dating method considered experimental for caves, thermoluminescence dating, had suggested that layer 22 is 170,000 years old.)

Slon and her colleagues managed to analyze a significant amount of nuclear DNA from three teeth that turned out to be Denisovan. (A fourth was Neandertal.) By comparing key sites on the tooth DNA with corresponding sites in the high-quality genomes of the Denisova girl, Neandertals, and modern humans, they revealed that the Denisovan inhabitants in that one cave were not closely related. They had more genetic variation among them than all the Neandertals so far sequenced, although Neandertals are known to be similar genetically.

shunyadragon
12-11-2015, 05:17 AM
I doubt you can do something for a long time and not have any success, no matter what method you choose and no matter how talented you are. Science is practice. But history is another story.

Another story? The problem here is what you cite and assert does not represent an accurate depiction of the our history.

Adam
12-30-2015, 03:43 PM
Here's another thread where I could perhaps settle all the questions of existence, but mossrose won't let me.

shunyadragon
01-02-2016, 08:10 PM
Here's another thread where I could perhaps settle all the questions of existence, but mossrose won't let me.

???????