Neanderthal DNA

[Bruce]

min, i haven't heard of species texas homo, what known species do you think it was-north american homo sapiens?

[Cognito]

Charlie has neandertal in texas at 150,000bp. What do you think digit, did they evolve in texas or africa?

Any hominid in Texas at 145,000bce would most likely be H. erectus.

I think Charlie has evidence of humans in Texas at that time. Sometimes though when we talk about the relationship between Clovis points and Solutrean points we are thinking that Solutreans may have HNS genes, but there is no proof of that yet.

Solutrean = one locale of Cro-Magnon.

Mousterian = Neandertal

Cro Magnon = Me ... yDNA R1b1 plus mtDNA U5a. That's as close to Cro Magnon as anyone can get.

[Minimalist]

min, i haven't heard of species texas homo, what known species do you think it was-north american homo sapiens?

If Charlie can show there was someone there who shouldn't have been I think he should be allowed to name them anything he likes.

[Cognito]

Recent tool discoveries, etc. also serve to explain the following anomaly:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002828.html

Charlie can name his species H. erectus texus but it is erectus just the same. Budinger at Calico is also looking for the same species.

[Charlie Hatchett]

I've never heard Charlie say they were Neanderthals.

An unidentified group of Texas Homos, perhaps...but never Neanderthals!

Yeah, I don't know Min. Some of the artifacts resemble HNS:

Local:



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/bone129.jpg

Slovenia (43,000 B.P.)



Note how fat the finger holes are in the images above compared to Hss
bone flutes:





Stone Artifacts:



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20112.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20148.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20149.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20256.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20306.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20290.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20291.jpg

But then you have the Erectus looking stuff:



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20351.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20353.jpg

_______________________________________________________



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20355.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20356.jpg

___________________________________________________________



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20358.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20359.jpg

________________________________________________________




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20368.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20367.jpg


Then you have pieces that resemble Hss technology:



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20181.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20182.jpg

________________________________________________________



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... e%2011.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... e%2013.jpg

__________________________________________________________




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20273.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20274.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20275.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20276.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20277.jpg


Seems like a bit of each. Of course, we need to keep Steen-McIntyre's interpretation of the site in mind:

...Charlie found one in situ stemmed projectile point in the gravel cap underlying (older than) fine-grained sediments in which Clovis points have been found by others and dated by them at ca. 12,000 years. Said tool (archaic [not! VSMcI] 20) has remnants of a carbonate coat covering the flake scars. (flake scars = tool shaping = older than carbonate coat = older than gravel cap = older than Clovis = older than 12,000 years). Other stemmed tools from nearby float (out of context) also have remnants of carbonate coats covering flake scars, as do many other float specimens showing various flaking technologies. He finds other artifacts in the overlying fine-grained sediments, the ones that have produced Clovis points at a nearby site, but none of them have remnants of a carbonate coat. We can assume they are younger than the carbonate coat episode.

But carbonate coats don't start out as relatively thick spots on flake scars; they start out as thin films covering the whole piece and thicken slowly over time. And nature doesn't treat an artifact as an artifact; she treats it as a piece of gravel. So we can further assume that, after these pieces were made, they rested a long time in the place they were dropped, and that the climate at that time was hot and dry, with intermittent moisture (for the carbonate to be moved in solution and later deposited on the tools. Sangamon Interglacial?) Then the climate got a lot wetter (Wisconsin time?) This in order to erode the sediments containing the tools, concentrate them, and move them along in a relatively high energy environment to their current position in the gravel cap, knocking off most of their carbonate coats in the process.

So, these tools Charlie is finding will have to be older than the gravel cap out of which they are now eroding. And they can be of various ages. Two especially, if those chip marks aren't natural, have had flake scars modified by water transport, i.e. dulled edges, before the carbonate coat was added (paleo 20, photo 2010a; preclovis 2019). Others may have been recycled at a later date (preclovis 20190, preclovis 20206)...

[Digit]

If he's got the evidence Bruce he wins. One of the major broblems with the out of Africa scenario is which species? Erectus is supposed to left Africa many years before HSS and his numbers can never have been great, so if Erectus covered Asia as well as Africa and Australia? he must have been in groups dotted about all over the planet. Darwinism now has its isolated groups to work its magic on.
If Erectus in Africa gave rise to HSS it seems entirely reasonable that he could have given rise to another species elsewhere in the world. Natural selection only needs an isolated group and a change in conditions and its away. As the first new species from Erectus would have had to be able to breed with Erectus the two new sets of species, say in Asia and Africa, should have been able to interbreed.
It is stated in modern belief that white skin probaly arose in one individual, certain I would have thought, then where did the yellow skin come from? A second mutation from the same stock or another one off mutation from a separate islotaed group? Makes much more sense I think?
Into America? Given enough time, and the land bridge, why not?

[Charlie Hatchett]

I've been pondering this rapid dispersal bit, and I recalled the Hebrew bible's book of Genesis speaking of a rapid dispersion: The Tower of Babel.

Genesis 11
The Tower of Babel
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

I'm wondering if anyone's familiar with major dispersal accounts in other religions...kinda like we were doing on the flood bit. Do any of the Native American legends speak of a great dispersal?

Again, just brainstorming...

[Charlie Hatchett]

Natural selection only needs an isolated group and a change in conditions and its away. As the first new species from Erectus would have had to be able to breed with Erectus the two new sets of species, say in Asia and Africa, should have been able to interbreed.

Natural selection seems to be a very plausible hypothesis. Isolated regions and populations...no doubt natural selection would have culled the best traits for the particular region. As to the skin color bit, we could go as far to say that mutations weren't even necessary. Could have been in the whole genetic package to begin with, and natural selection, acting on the different populations, would bring out the best traits for the particular region.

Into America? Given enough time, and the land bridge, why not?

And lets not forget the possibility of boats. 6-9 day trip from Africa to Brazil, Central America, Mexico and the southern U.S. That's with no sail. Decent sail? Cut the time in half. The prevailing, constant, fairly strong easterly winds, coupled with the strong, eastward flowing Canary Current, would have helped make the trip much easier. Possibly easier than dealing with the extreme cold of the poles.

[Digit]

I agree with the sail bit Charlie but I refrained from suggesting it as I thought that might be too big a step for some. You see Charlie, the 'experts' again have man paddling frpm beach to beach and forever avoiding open water. Anyone who has ever hoisted a sail will tell you that it's safer to stay away from land, once into the surf and you are in trouble.

[Cognito]

I agree with the sail bit Charlie but I refrained from suggesting it as I thought that might be too big a step for some. You see Charlie, the 'experts' again have man paddling frpm beach to beach and forever avoiding open water. Anyone who has ever hoisted a sail will tell you that it's safer to stay away from land, once into the surf and you are in trouble.

Erectus in America at a very early date would explain the head lice anomoly. Rafting there on currents while following marine food is not impossible, and am I to believe they were too dumb to hoist a sheet to catch the wind?

[Minimalist]

he must have been in groups dotted about all over the planet.

That is the hunter/gatherer model but why would those groups have been immune to the known effects of in-breeding within a tiny band of humans?

[Charlie Hatchett]

That is the hunter/gatherer model but why would those groups have been immune to the known effects of in-breeding within a tiny band of humans?

Very well could have been a problem. Wonder what the severe mutation rate is for babies born to mates too closely related. If it's small, it's plausible they could have dealt with the problem...though it was a negative concerning the survival of the band.

[Digit]

There is actually an upside to inbreeding as well as the downside. Inbreeding helps fix genes and to be honest I often wonder if the downside is overstated. For example, the dynastic Egyptians married siblings and I believe it also happened in pre-Col south America. Am I correct WA?

[Minimalist]

Off on another tangent, Charlie, but it turns out that actual studies of the issue are rare and, generally limited to first-cousins. In this story, from Utah, is an indication of what can happen when this sort of behavior is repeated within a small group for a few generations.

http://polygamyinfo.com/plygmedia%2099%2078%20trib.htm

Today, six sons and two daughters of John Ortell and LaDonna have married at least 20 half-sisters, nieces and first cousins, giving birth to a family tree that twists and tangles, and, at times, withers with children born of genetic deficiencies.

Among the polygamous Kingstons, a number of children have been born
with birth defects, among them one born with two vaginas and two uteruses
but no vaginal or bowel opening. Outwardly, she appeared to have no sex
organs. The girl, born to John Ortell and Isabell Johnson, was not the product of an incestuous marriage. Family members attribute the defects to the advanced ages of the mother and father -- he was 64, she was 45.
"My mother should not have produced another baby," says Rugg, also
Isabell and John Ortell's daughter and the baby's full sister. "Her body tried to miscarry many, many times."

Other possible genetic traits include: microcephaly, a malformation of the
skull in which the infant has a small head (ex-members say two children with
microcephaly have died and eight others are institutionalized); blindness; spina
bifida; Down syndrome; kidney disease and abnormal leg and arm joints.
While none of these can positively be linked to incest without DNA testing,
geneticists say most of the conditions are exacerbated by incest.
Some genes linked to conditions like microcephaly and dwarfism are
"autosomal recessive," and are found among the 22-linked pairs of
chromosomes that do not include the X and Y sex chromosomes, says Lynn
Jorde of the University of Utah's Eccles Human Genetics Institute, a leading
genetics research center.
"You don't want to jump to the conclusion and say all of these are the
result of inbreeding," he says. "But just on general principles, the offspring of uncle-niece, or half-siblings have an elevated level of genetic disease. There is no doubt about that at all. So when you see all of these diseases occurring in the children, it's possible some are the result of inbreeding."

Of all the arguments against incest, says Jorde, the likelihood that genetic
abnormalities will be passed to succeeding generations is the most persuasive.

So....it would seem that prolonged (even if enforced) in-breeding would not be a good idea.

[Charlie Hatchett]

So....it would seem that prolonged (even if enforced) in-breeding would not be a good idea.

Yeah, no doubt it would have been a negative "load" on the population. Whether they could have survived, despite the load, seems interesting to investigate. Surely this situation has occured, with isolated peeps, throughout history. From the Archaic period, and perhaps much earlier, the hunter/ gatherer lifestyle has been present. Of course, the populations appeared to get larger and larger, especially by Archaic times: younger than 8000 B.P.