xFrockx said:

Again, visual information is not sufficient to define boundaries.

---

Rail_Gun said:

It's now clear based on genetic data that humans evolved separately from the Homo Erectus stage and that Caucasians and Asians also interbred with neanderthal

---

8/14/2012 9:30 AM ET
In the last two years, a number of studies have suggested that early humans interbred with Neanderthals who were of short, stocky build and broad nose. Genetic evidence has also been published claiming that an estimated 1 percent to 4 percent of the DNA in modern Europeans and Asians was inherited from the Neanderthals. But a new study by researchers at the University of Cambridge has raised doubts about the human-Neanderthal interspecies mating.

The study funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Leverhulme Trust explains that common ancestry, and not any hybridization, should be attributed to the genetic similarities between Neanderthals and modern humans.
http://www.rttnews.com/1947576/did-humans-breed-with-neanderthals-a-new-study-says-no.aspx

Raven Gnosis said:

You ain nuttin' buduh a paaale skin nigga..."

---

xFrockx said:

There is no biological basis for race, and yet, people assert it exists using all sorts of fallacious arguments.

Which unfounded argument based on unexamined evidence will you use to tell me the opposite?

---

Quote:

Option 1: YUR REACIST!!! *nothing in particular follows just some rowdy sounds and everyone goes home and forgets about it*

Option 2: Maybe you should investigate that feeling. Is it based on an experience as a child with a member of another race? If so, it is not legitimate under that complex. Is it based on something natural, innocent and healthy? If so, maybe you should keep it, maybe you shouldn't just rule it out because of history.

---

Quote:

The universe does not know hate.

---

circastes said:

Genesis makes perfect sense to a child.

---

Rail_Gun said:

I believe the studies which demonstrated hybridization between cromagnon and neanderthal in European and Asian populations. The genetic evidence is convincing. The evidence of separate evolution from the Homoerectus is also compelling.

If for the sake of discussion though, if neanderthal and European/Asians have a common ancestry with neanderthal but the African population does not (African population has zero neanderthal DNA) then what does that indicate? The Homo Sapien out of Africa theory is still bad science if the only pure Homo Sapien population (African) has a different genetic heritage than the rest of human kind...

While that study you cited gives anecdotal support to discrediting the out of Africa theory it raises more difficult questions than it pretends to answer. When the results are refuted so easily by common sense I find it difficult to give credibility to those results.

---

viktor said:

circastes said:

Genesis makes perfect sense to a child.

---

You cannot be serious. I first read the Bible at age 7, at which point it was already clear that anyone who believed in this was insane.

Edit: wrong tone. You're one of my favourite posters here, and I need to go to bed

---

xFrockx said:

There is no biological basis for race, and yet, people assert it exists using all sorts of fallacious arguments.

Which unfounded argument based on unexamined evidence will you use to tell me the opposite?

---