Not just the Neanderthals. The Denisova and a few other sub humans.
Just lately when DNA began to show this they did more research on where people really originated from.
They found out they originated from several places.

Hell, it was Charles Darwin who decided all humans came from Africa.
That was quite a few years ago but some people haven't noticed we are a little better at researching today.
Darwin got his idea from looking at a gorilla. DNA is a little better than that.

 

The vast majority of distinctly human genes in non Negroes came from Africa about 50,000 years ago. Very few distinctly human genes in non Negroes came form Neanderthals and Denisovas.

 

This is all sophistry.

EITHER all modern humans share one common ancestor from Africa (among many possible ancestors) and are therefore all of the same species,

OR there are humans alive today who share NO common ancestors and therefore are of different species, though they may appear to be similar.

I don't give a flying fuck what the flavor of the month is today in politically correct pseudo-science. Horses and donkeys breed, but produce sterile MULES. Thus, Horses and donkeys are DISTINCT SPECIES. Because while they are both superficially similar mammals, their common ancestors go too far back in the cladistic chain for viability.

Humans of all races can interbreed, and their offspring can produce offspring. We ALL share a relatively recent COMMON ANCESTOR, and thus, therefore, we are ALL the same species and there is NO bestiality between "races."

 

I said, horses and donkeys breed, but their offspring are sterile.

Mules are sterile.

Thus horses and donkeys are cladistically distinct and are different species.

Viability means the ability not only to reproduce but to produce fertile offspring.

As anyone with any experience in breeding animals knows.

What is it with you? I'm trying to understand why you're so stuck on this. Do you really believe that crackers and niggers are distinct species?

 

If you think horses and jack asses are the only crosses there is you need to open your eyes.

 

Argh.

Dogs and wolves, maybe? Sorry. Supports my argument. The common ancestry is quite recent. Approximately 50,000 years. Dogs and wolves are likely still the same species. Same with pigs and boars. Humans domesticated them a moment ago, in evolutionary time.

The single common ancestor of humans is from at least 1.2 million years ago. Neanderthals and anyone else who came into the mix are much more recent and therefore share that same common ancestor, and merely left Africa earlier, on previous waves of diaspora.

You're not answering my question.

And you've already made a couple Freudian slips. Referring to "human species," in the plural. I usually agree with you, but I'm sorry. I can only imagine DL is loving having you on his side, but you're not going to convince me that white/black marriages are bestiality.

 

Since I raise birds I will give you a short list of other species that will cross with the common chicken.
Silver pheasant, red jungle fowl, green jungle fowl, peafowl, chachalacas, capricale, grouse, quail, corassows, and guans.
And that is just one species, a common chicken.

 

Want to se a list of species that can cross with a cow, a horse, a pig, a dog?
There are quite a few.

 

Sterile freaks.

And you're still not answering the question.

Shootersa asked where this is going.

I unwittingly got sucked into this nonsense, so now I want to know, too.

What is your point. Spit it out.

 

Bestiality is, by definition, the act of cross-breeding between species. It is the justification for race based slavery.

 

Ready for another list?

Lion- leopard
Lion-tiger
wart hog-domestic pig
camel-llama
domestic goat-llama
alpaca-guanaco
domestic cow-buffalo
European bison-yak
sheep-goat

 

How about a short list of humans

Home erectus
homa georgicus
homs floresiensis
homo habilis
homo Neanderthal
homo heidelbergensis
homo cepranenis
homo ergaster
homo rudolfensis
homo rodensis

 

I won't belabor every freak on your latest list, but as to the last: the sheep/goat example supports what I am saying. The vast majority of sheep/goat offspring are stillborn. Of the few that survive, many males are sterile, and most females are sterile. If they can breed at all, it is with pairings of pure sheep or goat. Sheep/goat hybrids cannot pair with sheep/goat hybrids.

Thus, they are, by and large, sterile. Like mules.

Some breeders can artificially produce offspring that appear to be viable. (Chimeras.) But again, this is artificial. The two animals are superficially similar, but they are cladistically distinct. (i.e., they branch on different genera.)

You still haven't given us your big reveal.

I suspect you're a bit embarassed with the prospect of telling everyone what your point is.

And I am losing interest.

 

Got another rlist for you to look at.

Kenyananthropus platyops
paranthropus aethiopicus
paranthropus boisei
paranthropus robustus
qrrorin tugenesis
ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus bahrelgbazali
austrolopithecus garhi
austrolopithecus sediba
austrolopithecus tchadensis

Have any idea what these are?

 

Don't care.

It's not that this isn't all fascinating.

Exceptions prove the rule. I've found a picture of a cute little goat/sheep kid named "Butterfly," and on some crazy bestiality site I found scholarly literature on the successful in vitro fertilization of a gibbon egg with human sperm.

But what, for the love of god, is your point? Are niggers a different species than crackers? Yes or no?

 

My point is the same as it was when I came on this forum.

Not all humans had the exact same ancestors. Some had different ancestors along with many common ones.
If you think Neanderthals common ancestor was the first and others came later you need to do more research.
There was a whole bunch before then and after them. Not all people had the same ancestors.
Today they have been mixed but they did have separate ancestors if you go back far enough.

 

I see you found your ass Clarise!!

Giggling here.......g'night all play nice!

Thinskin

 

Arguing incessantly about the absurd notion that DNA has nothing to do with intelligence while it has everything to do with the brain is pointless.

But I'm fascinated by people who can hold contradictory facts in their head and embrace both.

As to the fallacy of the slippery slope I'm not going to back down. Simply acknowledging that certain groups have different aggregate intelligences will not lead to the reenslavenent of former groups or to genocide in the United States. It's an academic issue.

I am a bit fascinated about why shootersa refers to himself in the third person and why he chose such a disturbing picture.

I'm sure he will call this a personal attack but it's more a curiosity.

 

And by the way glib patronization of other members in here is a form of personal attack albeit a passive aggressive one.

But anonymity encourages behavior like this.

 

I think that shooter misunderstood my point about the differences between men and women and I Q .

I pointed out that women are leptokurtotic In the aggregate. This means that IQs tend to be more in the middle of the bell curve while men tend to be platykurtotic meaning that their IQs tend to extend further to the low and high end of the IQ spectrum .

This is a difference in IQ distribution within the same species .

In not challenging this , he seems to accept these differences when it comes to gender but not when it comes to race and this is a bit confusing to me .

So in summing all of this up. He seems to accept that DNA seems to play a role in differences concerning appearance in humans and he seems to accept that it plays a role in intelligence in animals and it plays a role indifferences of intelligence between men and women .

But his red line is accepting differences of intelligence between races .

It seems arbitrary and that's why I say that it is emotional . Perhaps visceral is a word that he would be more comfortable with.