Genes that helped humans survive arctic came from interbreeding with extinct species.

[MVP]

No, all religions should not be treated equal only the ones they respect basic human rights an do not throw fits over eighty five thousand year old bones cause they need attention.

Orwell says hi.

 

[Dr. Jones]

 

[Gameface]

Those are some highly evolved genes. Much more so than any of mine.

 

[babe]

Very interesting. Science is awesome!

https://www.calgaryherald.com/news/...c+came+from+interbreeding/12564162/story.html

MVP exults with the triumphs of science, and Siro and Dal seem to like weird gene stuff too. Just reading the OP heading makes my head spin.

dunno about any of you, but breeding with extinct species is really cutting edge technology. I know if we find a wooly mammoth frozen in Arctic ice we can clone it, and maybe copy off a few genes to benefit our sheep and cows, too.


But over on Coast to Coast there's some guests sometimes who believe our international bankers are hybrids with insects, ya know. The Super Race.

 

[Red]

OK, took a quick spin down the article and the comments. Fun.

If the author's lavish explanation involving the Ice Age/Bering Strait land bridge migrations explains the gene frequency in Greenland's Baffin Bay Inuit is correct, how come they didn't check out the genetic marker, oh, say, in Chile's southern natives?

There's evidence of Ice Age migrations from France to New Jersy, too..... clearly Neanderthal genetics should be there, too.

How about the African migrations across the Atlantic to Brazil 30,000 years ago, and the Pacific deep sea fishing cultures around the Pacific Rim from 15000 years ago.

Ah science is awesome, our government orders European bones dated 7000 years ago reburied and not studied further because it embarrasses our scientific elites to revise their dogma.

I'll correct a couple of mistakes Babe makes in these comments. First, regarding Neanderthal genes, unless you are 100% black African, or descended from same, you have some small % of Neanderthal genes. You don't have to look to Native Americans from NJ in ancient times to find Neanderthal genes. All non Africans have some tiny % of such ancestry.

Second, regarding migrations across the Atlantic, this is the so-called Solutrean Hypothesis. The Solutreans were less a distinct people, then a type of stone tool technology, and dates around 22,000 years old. Dennis Stanford, an archaeologist at the Smithsonian, helped popularize the so-called Solutrean Hypothesis, claiming that the tool kit, which, until very recent years, was considered to be the tool kit of the original inhabitants of the Americas, namely the Clovis projectile point and the Clovis people, displayed a stone tool technology that could only have developed out of the Solutrean technology. So he, and others, suggested the Solutreans must have made it across the Atlantic. But, not to NJ, but to the Delmarva Peninsula. There is indeed a heavier concentration of Clovis points in the Delmarva then surrounding areas, but Clovis is in fact a continent wide occurrence. They are found in all 50 states. And they appeared around 13,000 years ago, so there is a great time gap with Solutrean technology in France and Spain.

Now, until recent decades, the dogma that was indeed subscribed to by American archaeologists was that Clovis was in fact the earliest people in the Americas. It has been an intense fight with the "Clovis First" archaeologists, but we now know that there were pre-Clovis cultures here. We can safely assume the earliest migration has to have been at least 20,000 years ago, and some would argue for earlier dates. And several migration routes have been suggested. Including across the Atlantic. And including what is known as the Pacific Kelp Highway route. Sailing, in other words, rather then overland in a so-called ice free corridor. The Pacific Kelp Highway route may explain the existence of the Monte Verde site in Chile, which is pre-Clovis and at least 14,000 years old. It may, in fact, have dates as old as 30,000 years, but these are not generally accepted.

Let's return to the Solutrean Hypothesis, which has indeed been used by white supremacists to argue that people from Europe were here before the ancestors of Native Americans. Well, dates considerably older then 13,000 years, containing projectile points that are not Clovis, have been found in the Delmarva. Dates in excess of 20,000 years, and recall, Solutrean tools are in the 22,000 year range. Here in the East Coast, bifacial bipointed blades have been found which Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian, and others, claim were produced by Solutrean technology. One of these blades was found in the Chesapeake Bay, near mammoth remains. Found decades ago by scallop fisherman. The mammoth remains have been dated to over 20,000 years. But the recovery circumstances and exact association with mammoth remains have recently been placed in doubt for this recovery. Now, two of the bipointed blades found in the Delmarva Peninsula were found to be made of French flint. Seemingly a compelling case for Stanford et al, but one of those two blades was found in circumstances, buried beneath a colonial chimney foundation, that cannot remove the possibility that it was in fact buried by a colonist in the 17th century.

Now, as to the white supremacists embracing the Solutrean Hypothesis. They will be dissapointed to learn that recent studies have determined that white pigmentation developed among Europeans roughy 8000 yeas ago, long after the Solutreans, and long after the initial settling of the Americas. So, even if the Solutrean technology people were indeed here first, they were not white.

The bottom line where the Solutrean Hypothesis is concerned at this point in time, is that it is a minority opinion, without much support, but it remains a working hypothesis which may yet be established one day as fact. A lot, I mean a lot, more evidence is needed. The real bottom line in the peopling of the Americas debate is this:

The Clovis-First dogma is dead. We have known and dated pre-Clovis sites in North America, With the death of the Clovis-First dogma, there is fresh air in the subject of the peopling of the Americas. We are now open to seeing how much sooner then Clovis did man arrive in the Americas, and by what routes.

I've mentioned the proposed Pacific Kelp Highway migration route, posited recently. The overland ice free corridor migration route has not been abandoned, and there were likely more then just one route from Asia into the Americas. The Africa to Brazil hypothesis is popular among some Brazilian archaeologists, and is actually largely unknown and un examined by their North American counterparts. But the bottom line, everything is wide open with the death of the Clovis-First dogma,

Now, I must correct one other mistake Babe makes. He states 7000 year old remains, I assume Kennewick Man, were reburied so as not to embarrass scientific elites. No, no, no, no no. The scientists pled the case not to re bury Kennewick Man. The scientists wanted further study of the remains. The scientists are very open to understanding the peopling of the Americas, and they are not trying to protect any dogma. Clovis-First did so, but that dogma is dead and buried now. But, when DNA studies revealed genetic connections to nearby tribes, the Army Corps of Engineers returned the remains to those tribes for re burial. It is the tribes, not the scientists, who wanted re burial. And the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act(NAGPRA) requires such return of remains.

So the re burial of Kennewick man has absolutely nothing to do with scientific elites wishing to protect dogma. That's just Babe's take on scientific elites in general. In applying that opinion to the Kennewick Man dispute, he is as wrong as wrong can be. It was the tribes who did not wish further scientific study of Kennewick Man. And the government returned the remains in compliance with federal law, namely NAGRPA.

 

[Red]

In fact, Kennewick Man is in excess of 9000 years old. It's probable that what intrigued researchers the most regarding the remains is that, physically, they did not resemble present day Native Americans. This article was written before DNA testing was performed, which demonstrated Kennewick Man was most closely related to nearby Native Americans. Before that testing was done, an even older skeleton, with physical features similar to Kennewick, were found in Mexico. DNA testing revealed close relationship to present day Native Americans. Leading at least one researcher to suggest the answer to this discrepancy must lie in the fact that physical evolution actually took place in the New World itself:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...nges-scientistrsquos-mind-on-human-migration/

And another early skeleton, from Montana, has now been tested, confirming the relationship of Clovis to Native American descendants. This study has been used to refute the Solutrean Hypothesis, but personally I do not think it removes that hypothesis completely. It may demonstrate that Clovis technology itself may not have evolved out of Solutrean technology however...

https://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/2760...ative-americans-from-two-continents-to-clovis

And some background, to demonstrate scientists were not acting as elites suppressing truth and protecting dogma, in the specific case of Kennewick Man. It has been the natives who have fought scientific testing. And there are arguments on both sides of this divide I do believe:

https://www.friendsofpast.org/earliest-americans/battle.html

Anybody familiar with historian of science Thomas Kuhn's seminal work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" will understand that there is a shorthand way of describing how fundamental change takes place in science, and it goes like this: new ideas only take hold finally when the last prominent supporters of the old paradigm dogma die. Truly, that is often how these things work. Scientists do support dogmas that have held sway for lengths of time. Like it or not, science can be very hide bound when it comes to overcoming prevailing dogma. Clovis-First in fact destroyed careers when it was not fashionable to suggest people were in the Americas before the Clovis people. A shame, but it did happen. But the supporters of pre-Clovis dates at Monte Verde, Chile, and the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in Pa held their ground and they won the day. Now, the peopling of the Americas is the most open and exciting field of research in the prehistoric archaeology of the Americas...

 

[babe]

I have to correct Red's fundamental mistake in life.

Too damn serious, no laughs.

So while I have three interesting archaeological sites in my back yard, within ten miles or so to properly size that "back yard", two of which produced artifacts of human settlements on the Bonneville shoreline roughly ten thousand years ago plus or minus whatever, and one which has a normal sized horse skeleton fossilized and dated to the same era, inside a collapsed cave entrance that meant it was unknown until neighbor spelunking down a hole hardly big enough for a man discovered the larger chambers. . . I am not an archaeological or anthropologist. I took one class of each in college, and was interested enough, and didn't really care to question the validity of the sciences generally at that time.

People in JazzFanz should consider me a mocker of anyone with expansive notions of understanding who uses them to claim "settle science", "consensus science" or "facts" suitable for political suppression of free speech or further thought. This is what the term "moron" generally means in my personal dictionary.

Anyone who actually knows something I don't, imo, should call me a "moron" for being that sort of participant in discussions where clearly I know less than they do.

My eyes are not what they used to be. I might read a 9 as a 7 if I don't apply my magnifying glass to the line.

The true scientists in any field will not "suppress" any finding, any evidence, or any of the possible implications, but we do live in an age of "consensus" political propaganda,and we should decry it where ever that species rears its ugly head to dictate schoolbook content.

I am very pleased in that I have read a number of original research papers in this particular discipline and have been aware of some of the claims made by original researchers, but I have not read all the work.

Red has here produced one of the best cohesive presentations of the story at the interpretive level of scholarship. Many Kudos. likes and rep, all that stuff.

 

[babe]

I have a hard time with actually including "white supremacists" in the field of anthropology, though.

yah, Mormons of an age where there was a belief in God giving a curse to some people for whatever reason, changing their skin color, and 1860s armchair philosophers like Parley P. Pratt who wrote "Science: Key to Theology" to confirm the biases, at length, describing modern African and Orientals as deformed humans consequent to the rejection of the Gospel from the time of Noah. Nothing in the Bible or LDS scriptures indicates that any class of human race is anything less than children of the same God, creations of the same God, or should not have fundamental rights as humans.

No wonder the LDS Church today has a publicity dept. and correlation committee charged with editing everything leaders want to say.

Even Joseph Smith talked pretty expansively about pre-Columbian individuals, explaining whose bones it was with that spearpoint or that fake copper plate "found" in a mound. Pretty funny stuff. Some locals in Ohio actually scratched up some copper plate with "hieroglyphics" then used a little acid to age the plate, and buried it in "their" mound, and hired some Mormon boys to help dig where they would unbury it pretty quick. The plates were then hustled off for Joseph to "translate". At first glance Joseph said it looked like it might have something to do with some great black man, but then did not produce a translation, returning the plates without comment and wishing to have nothing to do with them.

But Mormons were never "White Supremacists" of the sort Red thinks of. Parley P. Pratt believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ would transform the visage of humans to the most beautiful imaginable sorts, and he wrote dreamy books of the "Lamanites" represented by the Plains Indians being transformed by the Gospel into good plains farmers, having their own lands in fact their own States. Well, the Book of Mormon said this sort of thing would happen when the Lamanites accepted the Gospel. Joseph Smith was a bit less dreamy and much more practical. He suggested the brethren should all marry good Lamanite women and get the transformation off to a good start.

"White Supremacists" are pretty few, really. There might be a lot of white folks who like white skin and really don't want to intermarry, but clearly there isn't anything very radical in that. We don't call blacks who marry blacks "Black Supremacists", really. The Plains Indians of 150 years ago might have had common notions of tribal pride as well, but no need to really crank it out as "supremacist" per se, even if they were better horsemen and better tomahawk fighters.

White human skin is a class of transformed genetics that is generally called a "mutation" in that the functional genes doing their proper job will produce the pigmentation, while people with white skin have a lower number of those functional genes and some relic nonfunctional ones. The mutation had some survival value, perhaps, in regions of lower sunlight over the long winter season, but is not thought to have been really necessary. Natural selection processes can produce fairly steep drift in such gene frequencies, either way. All it takes is some kind of notion in our heads of what looks good.

Someone who really believes ideologically that good and evil can be seen in skin color, and that people should be exterminated along that reasoning, might include some Marxist provocateurs and others trying to use racial hate on purpose. Abe Lincoln expressed some hate like that for the Indians, as did some Indians for the whites, but really it was a practical classification, as "good Indians" living peaceably were just escorted off to the Indian territory so whites could settle on and farm the Indian's eastern lands. And the Indians would sometimes sit and do business with whites, even accept whites in their bands. It takes a modern Marxist to make up "Supremacist" thought, and imo opinion, those little bands of Supremacists have been started by political Marxists hoping to create class warfare. I see no reason to validate such thought in any sense.

There is no "White Supremacist" cultural center or University, or professional grouping in the field of archaeology, and so the gratuitous reference Red makes to white supremacists beliefs in this discussion is really just something to mock and at least hoot about. You gotta be kidding me, Red, this is not relevant to this "science".

 

[Boris]

So? It is bones of their ancestors... so based on the treaty they should be given back.

What archaic treaty are you referring to? Archaic bones, archaic treaty.

Americans do not belief you can own something in perpetuity an that includes laws enacted in 1812 an bones you claim to be yer eighty five thousand year old ancestors that is straight stupid.

 

[Boris]

I have a hard time with actually including "white supremacists" in the field of anthropology, though.

yah, Mormons of an age where there was a belief in God giving a curse to some people for whatever reason, changing their skin color, and 1860s armchair philosophers like Parley P. Pratt who wrote "Science: Key to Theology" to confirm the biases, at length, describing modern African and Orientals as deformed humans consequent to the rejection of the Gospel from the time of Noah. Nothing in the Bible or LDS scriptures indicates that any class of human race is anything less than children of the same God, creations of the same God, or should not have fundamental rights as humans.

No wonder the LDS Church today has a publicity dept. and correlation committee charged with editing everything leaders want to say.

Even Joseph Smith talked pretty expansively about pre-Columbian individuals, explaining whose bones it was with that spearpoint or that fake copper plate "found" in a mound. Pretty funny stuff. Some locals in Ohio actually scratched up some copper plate with "hieroglyphics" then used a little acid to age the plate, and buried it in "their" mound, and hired some Mormon boys to help dig where they would unbury it pretty quick. The plates were then hustled off for Joseph to "translate". At first glance Joseph said it looked like it might have something to do with some great black man, but then did not produce a translation, returning the plates without comment and wishing to have nothing to do with them.

But Mormons were never "White Supremacists" of the sort Red thinks of. Parley P. Pratt believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ would transform the visage of humans to the most beautiful imaginable sorts, and he wrote dreamy books of the "Lamanites" represented by the Plains Indians being transformed by the Gospel into good plains farmers, having their own lands in fact their own States. Well, the Book of Mormon said this sort of thing would happen when the Lamanites accepted the Gospel. Joseph Smith was a bit less dreamy and much more practical. He suggested the brethren should all marry good Lamanite women and get the transformation off to a good start.

"White Supremacists" are pretty few, really. There might be a lot of white folks who like white skin and really don't want to intermarry, but clearly there isn't anything very radical in that. We don't call blacks who marry blacks "Black Supremacists", really. The Plains Indians of 150 years ago might have had common notions of tribal pride as well, but no need to really crank it out as "supremacist" per se, even if they were better horsemen and better tomahawk fighters.

White human skin is a class of transformed genetics that is generally called a "mutation" in that the functional genes doing their proper job will produce the pigmentation, while people with white skin have a lower number of those functional genes and some relic nonfunctional ones. The mutation had some survival value, perhaps, in regions of lower sunlight over the long winter season, but is not thought to have been really necessary. Natural selection processes can produce fairly steep drift in such gene frequencies, either way. All it takes is some kind of notion in our heads of what looks good.

Someone who really believes ideologically that good and evil can be seen in skin color, and that people should be exterminated along that reasoning, might include some Marxist provocateurs and others trying to use racial hate on purpose. Abe Lincoln expressed some hate like that for the Indians, as did some Indians for the whites, but really it was a practical classification, as "good Indians" living peaceably were just escorted off to the Indian territory so whites could settle on and farm the Indian's eastern lands. And the Indians would sometimes sit and do business with whites, even accept whites in their bands. It takes a modern Marxist to make up "Supremacist" thought, and imo opinion, those little bands of Supremacists have been started by political Marxists hoping to create class warfare. I see no reason to validate such thought in any sense.

There is no "White Supremacist" cultural center or University, or professional grouping in the field of archaeology, and so the gratuitous reference Red makes to white supremacists beliefs in this discussion is really just something to mock and at least hoot about. You gotta be kidding me, Red, this is not relevant to this "science".

No incorrect. This makes no scientific sense. Dark pigmentation absorbs all heat White absorbs none.

There is a reason Eskimos are dark skin, to absorb heat. Look at penguins an seals. Are they white or black? Know why polar bears are white it is cause camouflage an there huge size insulates them.

You do not find white fish in cold waters, only dark. What color is Shamu? Black.

Know why panthers are black? Cause they are one of few felines that swim. Deer turn black coats in wintertime, to absorb more heat.

Only reason I believe Aryan peoples like Nordics are white with there bright blue eyes is cause of alien intervention. There really is no other explanation for the size an the eyes. Bright blue eyes are susceptible to cosmic radiation an cancer. There is no evolutionary advantage. Dark pigmentation has only positive advantages in every environment, white pigmentation has none. That is why indegenous tribes from all corners of the planet are dark skinned. The Aryans introduced in the 1000 a.d. Timeframe were exception to the rule.

Tell me I am wrong by finding a white Chinese person. That is the largest country on earth an all there habitats made dark peoples.

 

[Siro]

So? It is bones of their ancestors... so based on the treaty they should be given back.

We should also give em all the bones of the ancient humans we find in Africa and elsewhere. After all, they are their ancestors and they have a right to bury them.

 

[MVP]

We should also give em all the bones of the ancient humans we find in Africa and elsewhere. After all, they are their ancestors and they have a right to bury them.

While you are technically correct about their ancestors in Africa the NAGPRA act does not cover Africa. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a law that establishes the ownership of cultural items excavated or discovered on federal or tribal land after November 16, 1990.

 

[Siro]

While you are technically correct about their ancestors in Africa the NAGPRA act does not cover Africa. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a law that establishes the ownership of cultural items excavated or discovered on federal or tribal land after November 16, 1990.

It is still absurd to posit that two groups that lived in the same area 9000 years apart are somehow of the same cultural/ethnic heritage. Laws aside, I wouldn't give em those bones.

 

[Eminence]

It is still absurd to posit that two groups that lived in the same area 9000 years apart are somehow of the same cultural/ethnic heritage. Laws aside, I wouldn't give em those bones.

Agreeing with Siro here, it's the law, so I guess. But it's a stupid law.

 

[babe]

It is still absurd to posit that two groups that lived in the same area 9000 years apart are somehow of the same cultural/ethnic heritage. Laws aside, I wouldn't give em those bones.

Considering the first fact alone, that the Kennewick Man was carrying a spearpoint in his hip, it is clear there was some fighting going on, at that time. This can in no way be construed as a continuous community across thousands of years. Someone was moving in, displacing someone else all across time most likely. Likewise, capturing squaws or women and keeping them while destroying the male "defenders" is common across tribal culturals and warring groups, so of course there's gonna be some genetic mixing involved over time, and the emergence of a sort of equilibrium gene pool in a region not being actually overrun by foreign hordes.

The law is really stupid. The tribes concerned need to prove their continuity across the relative time span. I favor science as the curators of relics of all kinds.

 

[babe]

No incorrect. This makes no scientific sense. Dark pigmentation absorbs all heat White absorbs none.

There is a reason Eskimos are dark skin, to absorb heat. Look at penguins an seals. Are they white or black? Know why polar bears are white it is cause camouflage an there huge size insulates them.

You do not find white fish in cold waters, only dark. What color is Shamu? Black.

Know why panthers are black? Cause they are one of few felines that swim. Deer turn black coats in wintertime, to absorb more heat.

Only reason I believe Aryan peoples like Nordics are white with there bright blue eyes is cause of alien intervention. There really is no other explanation for the size an the eyes. Bright blue eyes are susceptible to cosmic radiation an cancer. There is no evolutionary advantage. Dark pigmentation has only positive advantages in every environment, white pigmentation has none. That is why indegenous tribes from all corners of the planet are dark skinned. The Aryans introduced in the 1000 a.d. Timeframe were exception to the rule.

Tell me I am wrong by finding a white Chinese person. That is the largest country on earth an all there habitats made dark peoples.

Vitamin D.

In the tropics there is dietary sources available all year. In the subarctic people have to be able to make it, and the skin is where that happens. The skin needs sunlight not blocked in the dead outer layers. dead skin layers get thicker when you can't bathe frequently.

At least, it has long been believed by some scientists that there is a survival value in the subarctic for white skin.

fishing cultures/diet may compensate, but farming and hunting cultures inland might amount to that survival value for light skin.

 

[Red]

What archaic treaty are you referring to? Archaic bones, archaic treaty.

Americans do not belief you can own something in perpetuity an that includes laws enacted in 1812 an bones you claim to be yer eighty five thousand year old ancestors that is straight stupid.

Boris, it's know as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGRPA. Passed by Congress in 1990, it requires museums, for instance to return funerary/grave goods, as well as human remains to tribes:


https://www.nps.gov/nagpra/MANDATES/INDEX.HTM

 

[Red]

If you look at the facial reconstruction of Kennewick Man, it is not hard to see why many felt these remains could not be of an individual ancestral to present day Native Americans. I believe this assumption is why the courts originally sided with the archaeologists who sought DNA testing, even though the tribes even then were demanding return for reburial.

Where NAGRPA has derailed the desires of archaeologists is in the early remains found in the a United States. There are just way too few such remains. It's only natural to see study of very early remains as a key component in the advancement of knowledge where the early peopling of the Americas is concerned. I'm certain a less then stellar history of the dominant culture's treatment of Native Americans has played into the attitude of Native Americans toward the needs and desires of anthropologists and prehistorians. It is unfortunate. But it is what it is, thanks to NAGRPA.

Now that DNA testing has established the link between truly early remains and present day populations of Native Americans, it may prove very difficult to gain scientific study of any remains dating to very early times. That really is unfortunate. Nevertheless, pre-Clovis studies will continue. It's in its very early stages. But, take a look at this facial reconstruction of Kennewick Man. Since DNA does not lie, and the relation to Native Americans is proven, some degree of physical evolution must have taken place after the arrival in the Americas. Some felt originally that Kennewick Man must have been Ainu, indigenous inhabitants of Japan and Russia....

https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...tle-over-9-000-year-old-bones-is-finally-over

 

[Red]

What archaic treaty are you referring to? Archaic bones, archaic treaty.

Americans do not belief you can own something in perpetuity an that includes laws enacted in 1812 an bones you claim to be yer eighty five thousand year old ancestors that is straight stupid.

Boris, I don't expect you to agree with this perspective, but this piece at least provides an opportunity to appreciate the complexity of the issue, and from the perspective of Native Americans. Written before DNA studies linked Kennewick Man to present day Northwest coast tribes....

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.c...ng-legal-and-moral-battle-over-kennewick-man/