Search This Blog

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Another Probably Unpublished Comment

[Posted 12-23-2011, 19:38 pm, on page 93 of thread]


"I know that. But if there is admixture something will show up in the ydna regardless. I wasn't questioning the extend of admixture but the presence of it in the first place. Ydna might not estimate admixture(and show less than there actually is) but nothing questionable so far has shown anything to indicate admixture took place besides maybe a few isolated cases.

"Also how high is the Russian Amerindian admixture. For the Tajiks 2% Amerindian admixture to come from them would indicate Russian admixture is very very high."...

..."That POV might have been held by Soviets but certainly not the people they ruled. Speculating on admixture is just that. There is no evidence for significant Russian admixture in Tajiks (many of whom reside in Afghanistan anyways and many of whom are rural anyways)."


The apparent 'Amerindian' admixture between certain indigenous / aboriginal types of Europeans or 'Russians' is actually due to their common genetic roots:  they're all Cro-Magnon, ancient Caucasian types.


I had to re-phrase it here, since I lost my paste...

What the self-made 'experts' are doing to us "common" ~people, is muddying the intellectual waters in grand proportions.

They operate on stupid assumptions about ancestry and origin, iow.  They have no grip on concepts like the theory of mammalian hybridization, place, time (chronology), physical traits as they relate to genetics, etc., etc., etc.

Either they are extremely dumb, or they are trying very hard to pull the wool over our eyes.

They want us to believe that Indigenous / Aboriginal (pre-Hybridization, Cro-Magnon) people and tribes worldwide -- are not related to one another.  Wrong.

They want us to believe that Hybridization (Neanderthal, Denisovan, Homo Erectus, and all the other what they refer to as "archaic" -- iow, part ~ape -- subspecies of Humans) PRECEDED the pure Human species.  Wrong.

Which came first, the horse and donkey -- or the mule?  You can't get a mule without you first must have a horse and a donkey to breed together.

But they would have us believe that the mule (more 'archaic', genetically or taxonomically, than a horse) preceded the horse.  LOL.

Likewise, they will admit that Humans did mate with the "archaic" hominid, hybrid, Human subspecies (obviously that is correct and can't be debunked, due to fairly recent DNA discoveries along with all the past blood chemistry and physical anthropogical studies), WHILE -- they ~deny that Humans ever mated with lower primates such as the Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans or Bonobos (can never remember which, but maybe both), and Rhesus macaque monkeys.  In other words, they deny that Human beings, ancient Cro-Magnons, mated themselves and/or their slave women with the animals that CREATED those same "archaic" hybrid hominids.

If Neanderthals are not hybrids, then they should NOT have Human mtDNA:  yet they do, so they are indeed Human hybrids; a subspecies of Humans -- not a separate species at all.  Not one set of the few Neanderthal remains found and analyzed, has ever possessed anything other than HUMAN mtDNA.  That fits the theory of mammalian hybridization perfectly, people.

They would have us believe that the Neanderthal and other 'archaic' subspecies of Humans, are "extinct" -- while in fact they also admit that those hybridized genes exist in 'modern Human' populations (yet don't seem to notice they're not ~evenly distributed in all populations, which if it were the case, would prove that we did 'evolve' from ape hybrids:  the ~fact is, the evidence proves that we did not "evolve" from them, but that many modern Humans are instead ~descended from Hybrids).

They would have us believe that the "anatomically modern Human" (which one?  which kind?  there are so many different types now) "evolved" from the "archaic", hybridized subspecies of Humans.  Wrong.  We didn't "evolve" from them:  we are in most cases ~descended from them.

They would have us believe that mtDNA is of little significance.  Wrong again.

They would have us believe that since mtDNA "Eve" lived in Africa, that she was necessarily "black".  Where's the proof of that?  One very wise individual recently remarked, "mtDNA U5b (a Cro-Magnon, Caucasian, indigenous type) might very well have been the ~mother of the African-type mtDNA haplogroups".  I think that concept is worth further investigation, because I can certainly see some logic in it.

[NOTE: my DNA forums comment (above quoted) was published, but somehow the part about the Amerindian connection was omitted... hopefully though, someone with brains out there, gets the picture.]

Food for thought; this article explains some of the many theories of Human Origin:

They would have us believe that any of the more ~recently published scientific papers automatically negate the validity of older studies.... Uh-huh.  Nope.  Nothing logical about that sort of thinking.  They discount and disregard any science that hasn't been done in the last year or so, no less; treating with derision any science over 20 (or so) yrs old.

That's insane, wishful thinking on their parts.  Some of the self-made 'experts' seem to entertain the delusion that they can easily re-write 'history' and reform 'science' -- simply by publishing other, updated, propagandized, irrationally based, insidiously biased 'studies'.

Who do they think their audience is:  troupes of monkeys or ignorant, young, gullible and trusting children?  Apparently.

No comments:

Post a Comment