Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

All other historical discussion, ancient or modern, falls here.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by Peter Kirby » Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:37 pm

Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan

The jury's still out on whether we want to consider them a subspecies or separate species.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by neilgodfrey » Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:08 pm

Related, a BBC doco ... : Lost Tribes of Humanity

nrg3625-f1-768x434.jpg
nrg3625-f1-768x434.jpg (53.19 KiB) Viewed 689 times

User avatar
John T
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by John T » Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:11 am

"A detailed comparison of the Denisovan, Neanderthal, and human genomes has revealed evidence for a complex web of interbreeding among the lineages."...wiki

What evidence?

Do you remember when DNA would prove that humans interbreed with chimps until real scientists used DNA and proved otherwise? Then it was Neanderthal DNA would prove they interbreed with humans until real scientists used DNA evidence and proved otherwise. Now the pseudo-scientists suggest that DNA evidence suggests that Denisovan interbreed with everyone else?

Suggestions/hunches are now considered proof of evolution?

I see the makings of another bad sci-fi movie. :facepalm:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by Peter Kirby » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:19 pm

John T wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:11 am
proof of evolution?
I didn’t even consider that angle. It’s easy to forget that some people are still creationists.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
John T
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by John T » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:16 am

Peter Kirby wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:19 pm
John T wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:11 am
proof of evolution?
I didn’t even consider that angle. It’s easy to forget that some people are still creationists.
And there it is, the obligatory snide remark that anyone who questions the so-called science of evolution (e.g. Piltdown Man) is automatically a creationists.

Just like anyone that points out the falsification of data by so-called climate scientists (e.g. IPCC) must be a flat-earther.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... l-warming/

:lol:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by Peter Kirby » Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:57 pm

John T wrote:
Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:16 am
Peter Kirby wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:19 pm
John T wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:11 am
proof of evolution?
I didn’t even consider that angle. It’s easy to forget that some people are still creationists.
And there it is, the obligatory snide remark that anyone who questions the so-called science of evolution (e.g. Piltdown Man) is automatically a creationists.
I didn’t even consider that angle. It’s easy to forget that some people are just dumb.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
John T
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by John T » Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:20 am

Then consider this angle.

They want you to believe they found the missing link, based on a tooth and a finger bone that contains similar DNA as modern humans? Keep in mind, chimps share over 99% of our DNA. It is more likely that Denisovan is more closely related to chimp/bonobo than human, if it existed at all.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... he-genome/

Sorry Peter, the jury is not still out, the district attorney doesn't even have enough evidence to call for a grand jury to begin with.
But keep digging, perhaps one day they will find a skull or a pelvic bone to pull DNA from, then get back to me.

To paraphrase Francis Bacon...Arrogant people tend to believe what they want to believe based on their own world view and although they feel their opinion is based on science, it is nothing more than an idol of the tribe.


"I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others."...Socrates
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

User avatar
John T
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by John T » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:04 pm

"As it stands, Denisovans are “a genome in search of an archaeological record,” says Reich.

http://discovermagazine.com/2016/dec/me ... denisovans

I have an idea, let's allow independent scientists to review the DNA tests for errors and outright fraud. :tomato:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift


User avatar
John T
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Previously Unknown Subspecies of Human Discovered in Siberia

Post by John T » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:31 am

Unlike you, I actually try to read your links but of course once I realized you are just posting links of things you haven't even bothered to read and/or understand, I can't help but point out the irony.

The article has nothing to do with Denisovan DNA but regarding the southern African San people 8,100–2,500 years ago.
Still, we can learn from this study just the same.

"Previous studies have suggested that the primary ancestry in the San is from a lineage that separated from all other lineages represented in modern humans today, before the latter separated from each other (Gronau et al., 2011, Veeramah et al., 2012). Such a model emerges when we automatically fit a tree without admixture to the data (Figure 3A), but we also find that a tree-like representation is a poor fit (Figure S4A), in the sense that ancient southern Africans who lived ∼2,000 BP were not strictly an outgroup to extant lineages in other parts of sub-Saharan Africa."

http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092 ... %2931008-5

Translation: We are still trying to figure out how to abuse DNA research to make our human tree match to what we expect and/or want. :facepalm:

Thanks for providing a link that unwittingly makes my argument. :thumbup:

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests