Originally posted by sonhouseI enjoyed it.
http://www.pbs.org/first-peoples/home/
I just watched the one called 'first peoples: Africa'
it is a fascinating story. DNA evidence does not lie.
Apparently this link will find your local station and ascertain whether there are upcoming episodes on it. US only, I suspect.
Originally posted by JS357I wonder how creationists account for the fact that pure blood African's have almost no DNA from Neandertals but only people from Asia and Europe have up to 3% even now, tens of thousands of years later? For us to have 3% from say 50,000 years ago NOW would seem to imply something more like 50% Neandertal genes from the interacting populations of Israel where they seem to have first interbred over 50,000 years ago.
I enjoyed it.
Apparently this link will find your local station and ascertain whether there are upcoming episodes on it. US only, I suspect.
Originally posted by sonhouseThere were no humans 50,000 years ago, numbnuts.
I wonder how creationists account for the fact that pure blood African's have almost no DNA from Neandertals but only people from Asia and Europe have up to 3% even now, tens of thousands of years later? For us to have 3% from say 50,000 years ago NOW would seem to imply something more like 50% Neandertal genes from the interacting populations of Israel where they seem to have first interbred over 50,000 years ago.
Originally posted by SuzianneI don't remember what was in the show but here is a link.
Is this new information, perhaps from this show? I've never heard that they had pin-pointed specific sites of interbreeeding nor of what peoples they interbred with.
http://www.zmescience.com/science/anthropology/neanderthals-middle-east-28012015/
It isn't well referenced - only mentions the Nature publication.
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Thanks for the link! I will go look at it now.
I don't remember what was in the show but here is a link.
http://www.zmescience.com/science/anthropology/neanderthals-middle-east-28012015/
It isn't well referenced - only mentions the Nature publication.
EDIT: Interesting article. First I've heard of this, but it is kind of "new" news (from the end of January, anyways). Of all the semi-scientific magazines I get, Nature isn't one of them, sorry to say.
Originally posted by sonhouseapart from mr hinds who has 100% Neandertal DNA
I wonder how creationists account for the fact that pure blood African's have almost no DNA from Neandertals but only people from Asia and Europe have up to 3% even now, tens of thousands of years later? For us to have 3% from say 50,000 years ago NOW would seem to imply something more like 50% Neandertal genes from the interacting populations of Israel where they seem to have first interbred over 50,000 years ago.
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, that is not how it works.
For us to have 3% from say 50,000 years ago NOW would seem to imply something more like 50% Neandertal genes from the interacting populations of Israel where they seem to have first interbred over 50,000 years ago.
Of course the very first 'love child' would have had 50/50 or something close to that, but beyond that we cannot say how many genes remained in the populations or how they spread apart from the 3% that is still there. It is likely that very few neanderthal genes remained for long in the human population even in the early stages.
It would be interesting to know exactly what the Neanderthal DNA does if anything.