[_ Old Earth _] Question about Neanderthal DNA missing from sub-Saharan Africa.

[nrsjunkmail777]

Hi, I've been trying to find the answer as to why the sub-Saharan African people don't have any neanderthal DNA. I know scientists say Neanderthals are a different species than homo sapiens, but I don't believe that. I believe that homo sapiens and neanderthals are the same and scientists are just confused. They see the bone density is a little different and that there bone structure was more robust, but I think these changes happened in Neanderthals after the flood and that our descendants genes deteriorated over thousands of years. I would call the people scientists are calling neanderthals pre-flood and soon after post flood, and we are there decedents which scientists are calling homo sapiens.

Still I don't understand how it's possible that the people of sub-Saharan Africa don't have any Neanderthal DNA. I think scientists have it right when they say they see Neanderthal DNA in people. But why don't the sub-Saharan African people have any Neanderthal DNA? I mean were all descended from Noah and the other people on his boat. So how is it possible that all people have Neanderthal DNA except for the sub-Saharan African people who have none?

If someone could give an answer that made sense It would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings nrsjunkmail777 and welcome

~Sparrow

 

[Vaccine]

Welcome to CF!

The quick answer to your question is the deterioration of DNA over generations would account for why we still have DNA in common but sub-Saharan Africans don't. The sub-Saharan Africans probably did share some DNA, just not as much as Europeans (1-4%) since the Africans were more isolated. The repair system for DNA damage due to water, chemical, and radiation is not 100%. If sub-Saharan Africans had only a slight amount in common a long time ago it's reasonable to think that could drop to 0%. The answer to your question has a lot to do with the question of whether we are devolving or evolving. If scientists don't even consider devolution as a possibility, they aren't looking at the whole picture. To me if we can all inter-breed we are the same species.
Either Neanderthos had growth rates 5x faster than modern humans or the scientists are wrong about their ages. The bones of the head and face continue to grow even after adulthood. Most modern humans have an average cranial length of 160mm at 80 years of age. Le Chapelle-aux-saints had a cranial length of 210mm. Again, either he had incredibly fast groth rate or he was really old.
I will scan in the images and post them when I get a chance.

 

[Barbarian]

Modern humans and Neandertals diverged after humans left Africa. There were at least three species (or possibly subspecies) of humans in Eurasia, archaic H. sapiens, H. neandertalis, and Denisovians. There was also a group of H. erectus, a dwarf form on the island of Flore in SE Asia, but they were far too different to have contributed to modern human genomes. Europeans have significant amounts of Neandertal genes, and some SE Asians/Pacific Islanders have significant amounts of Denisovian genes, so there was some mixing, but apparently not very much.

These three groups differed from each other much, much more than any two groups of modern humans differ from one another. Neandertals actually lived shorter lives than most modern humans; their large heads were due to very large brains, a result of being massively muscled, not necessarily more intelligent.

We know this, because the same traits were present in Neandertal children.

 

[Vaccine]

Neandertalsactually lived shorter lives than most modern humans

What are you basing that on? That isjust one interpretation of the data. Dr. Jack Cuozzo (Author BuriedAlive) examined the Neanderthal fossils and came to a differentconclusion.

; their large heads were due tovery large brains, a result of being massively muscled, notnecessarily more intelligent.

We know this, because the sametraits were present in Neandertal children.

That's just one way of looking at thedata. Looking at it that way children had 5x the growth rate ofmodern children. An alternative explanation is there was much moretime between the stages of development and what they were looking atwere teenagers, not children. Dr Cuozzo presented a strong case thatNeanderthal's aged very slowly. That the stages of growth werespread out over longer periods of time. That they lived well over300 years old and that accounts for the larger thicker cranial sizesand well developed brows. Here is one example of the discrepancy in growth rates:





View attachment 3202

 

[Barbarian]

It won't work no matter how you turn it. Neandertal children already had Neandertal features. And if they were (remarkably small) teenagers, they'd still be different than H. sapiens teenagers, with relatively larger skulls, and specifically Neandertal traits, many of which are not found even in extremely aged humans today.

Sometimes, the evidence is just what it says it is. And of course mandibular dysplasias that lead to late closure of the midline symphysis is occasionally seen in modern humans, so it's not surprising that it might happen to other species of human.

 

[Vaccine]

View attachment 3212View attachment 3210View attachment 3211

Hi, I've been trying to find the answer as to why the sub-Saharan African people don't have any neanderthal DNA. I know scientists say Neanderthals are a different species than homo sapiens, but I don't believe that. I believe that homo sapiens and neanderthals are the same and scientists are just confused. They see the bone density is a little different and that there bone structure was more robust, but I think these changes happened in Neanderthals after the flood and that our descendants genes deteriorated over thousands of years. I would call the people scientists are calling neanderthals pre-flood and soon after post flood, and we are there decedents which scientists are calling homo sapiens.

Still I don't understand how it's possible that the people of sub-Saharan Africa don't have any Neanderthal DNA. I think scientists have it right when they say they see Neanderthal DNA in people. But why don't the sub-Saharan African people have any Neanderthal DNA? I mean were all descended from Noah and the other people on his boat. So how is it possible that all people have Neanderthal DNA except for the sub-Saharan African people who have none?

If someone could give an answer that made sense It would be appreciated, thanks.

I thought I'd add this to the discussion. There is more to the shared DNA too. Dr. Cuozzo examined the neanderthal fossils and shared his finding in his book “Buried Alive”. He tells the reader they have to draw their own conclusions whether they had 5x the growth rate or were incredibly old. He presented evidence about neanderthal teeth, the angle of their jaw, angle of their face, a lack of mid line closure in the jaw, their cranial length and other evidence pointing to old age. This is just a forum and I can't post the whole book, so I'll just use the cranial length since it is the most straightforward.

Neanderthal's didn't have any grave marker telling us the date they were born and died. They had to use forensics to piece together how old they were. One piece of that puzzle is a cranial length of 210mm. Sampling 90 modern French men the average 60 year old had a cranial length of 187.8mm. The 20-30 group had a length of 185.3mm, which amounts to roughly .06mm per year growth. With those figures it would take 370 years of growth starting from age 60 to reach 210mm, for a final age of approximately 430 years old by today's growth charts. Supposedly people don't live that long, right?

Current statistics indicate kids hit puberty on average 10-12. Growth charts from the 1700's indicate on average people hit puberty around 17 (see attached). In the book Dr Cuozzo showed evidence, teeth, facial angles etc, that neanderthals didn't hit puberty until their 20's. He showed evidence, teeth, facial angles, etc, that neanderthal children had much more time in between growth stages and how it could take over 500+ years for the adults to reach a cranial length of 210mm. And that this advanced age would account for the thicker skills, well defined brows, longer teeth, and facial projection since the bones in our heads continue to grow even after adulthood. It depends on how you want to interpret the data, fast growth or really old. But, Dr Cuozzo uncovered many mistakes made by paleontologists since they favored a fast growth conclusion. These are documented in the book but he warns he does not want his book used to bash any paleontologists. I only mention it in case anyone wants to read them for themselves.

Back to the OP question of shared DNA. I believe neanderthals were very old, which supports my view Adam lived to 930 years old. I also believe when God decided man should not live longer than 120 it would have been a notable loss in our DNA. I believe that change would explain why we only share 1-4% with neanderthals. Isolation could explain a lower starting point for the sub-Saharan Africans and the proof reading system correcting errors doesn't always restore the data 100%. Over generations this loss could account for the undetectable DNA. I think we would live much longer than 120 if we had more neanderthal DNA.

 

[Vaccine]

It won't work no matter how you turn it.

All I have to say to that is:
"One final word on the use of this book. I realize that many will be angry at the colossal twisting of facts to suit the needs of evolution. To many I believe they thought it to be their duty, even thinking that the only interpretation is an evolutionary one and a biblical interpretation was invalid. To them and to all my readers, I say this: Don't beat people over the head with this book. My purpose is not to stir up anger but love." - Dr. Jack Cuozzo

 

[turnorburn]

I think nrsjunkmail777 has left the building..:naughty

tob

 

[Barbarian]

It won't work no matter how you turn it.

All I have to say to that is:

"One final word on the use of this book. I realize that many will be angry at the colossal twisting of facts to suit the needs of evolution.

So he's angry at evolution. He might as well hate thunderstorms. As you see, he's made all sorts of odd claims about Neandertals that don't hold up in light of facts.

To many I believe they thought it to be their duty, even thinking that the only interpretation is an evolutionary one and a biblical interpretation was invalid.

There is, of course, no conflict between evolution and the Bible. There are some conflicts between evolution and modern revisions of the Bible, but that is a different thing entirely.

To them and to all my readers, I say this: Don't beat people over the head with this book. My purpose is not to stir up anger but love." - Dr. Jack Cuozzo

I've read some of his work. It doesn't sound very loving.

 

[Vaccine]

As you see, he's made all sorts of odd claims about Neandertals that don't hold up in light of facts.

Here is what I see:

Fact:Le Chapelle-aux-saints cranial length 210mm
Fact: By Parchappe's 1863 growth chart he is 430 years old.
Conclusion: Evolutionists made their growth chart, Dr Cuozzo made his.

Dr Cuozzo, being an orthodontist and knowing something about teeth, documented why their charts were wrong. He showed how the teeth wear was consistent with extreme age and could not possibly be made by someone in their 40's. Take a closer look at that image with the mid line in the jaw. Does that even look like the teeth of a 2 year old? More like a teenager. Another thing to consider is apes only grow at 2x the rate of humans, yet the evolutionists charts have neanderthals growing at 5x to 12x the rate of humans depending on whether we are looking cranial length or facial angles. Seems to me evolutionists claims are the ones that don't hold up in light of the facts.

 

[Adam]

I know scientists say Neanderthals are a different species than homo sapiens, but I don't believe that. I believe that homo sapiens and neanderthals are the same and scientists are just confused.

What are your credentials that allow you to be the arbtitrator in this matter? What special training.education do you have that makes you more credible than the large body of evidence accumulated over decades? Do you have any reason other than a confirmation bias regarding Noah for your assumptions?

 

[Vaccine]

Hi, I've been trying to find the answer as to why the sub-Saharan African people don't have any neanderthal DNA. I know scientists say Neanderthals are a different species than homo sapiens, but I don't believe that. I believe that homo sapiens and neanderthals are the same and scientists are just confused. They see the bone density is a little different and that there bone structure was more robust, but I think these changes happened in Neanderthals after the flood and that our descendants genes deteriorated over thousands of years. I would call the people scientists are calling neanderthals pre-flood and soon after post flood, and we are there decedents which scientists are calling homo sapiens.

Still I don't understand how it's possible that the people of sub-Saharan Africa don't have any Neanderthal DNA. I think scientists have it right when they say they see Neanderthal DNA in people. But why don't the sub-Saharan African people have any Neanderthal DNA? I mean were all descended from Noah and the other people on his boat. So how is it possible that all people have Neanderthal DNA except for the sub-Saharan African people who have none?

If someone could give an answer that made sense It would be appreciated, thanks.

Well better late than never. I cameacross an article on Neanderthals that might help, although with a name like junkmail and only 1 post i doubt you'll ever see this. Anyway, someone here might be curious.

“The (Neandertal) DNA is invariably degraded to asmall average size of less than 200 base pairs”
“Neandertals, four short genomesequences have been determined”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.short

They “extrapolate” 4 billion basepairs from 200. Whatever their argument is, it's pretty weak. The human genome has over 3 billionbase pairs.

 

[Barbarian]

Fact:Le Chapelle-aux-saints cranial length 210mm
Fact: By Parchappe's 1863 growth chart he is 430 years old.
Conclusion: Evolutionists made their growth chart, Dr Cuozzo made his.

Nope. Cuozzo took some of the measurements from Parchappe, but not all of them. He used skull length, because that would give him the numbers he wanted. He ignored skull depth, because that would have made the Neandertal skulls younger than he wanted. Just a bit of cherry-picking to get the results he needed.

Dr Cuozzo, being an orthodontist and knowing something about teeth, documented why their charts were wrong. He showed how the teeth wear was consistent with extreme age and could not possibly be made by someone in their 40's.

Unless, like the Inuit, they chewed hides to make them more pliable.
http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/fil...pologie/Harvati/Harvati-Neanderthals-2010.pdf

Take a closer look at that image with the mid line in the jaw. Does that even look like the teeth of a 2 year old?

They look like immature Neandertal teeth. They had bigger teeth than we do.

More like a teenager. Another thing to consider is apes only grow at 2x the rate of humans, yet the evolutionists charts have neanderthals growing at 5x to 12x the rate of humans depending on whether we are looking cranial length or facial angles.

No. As you see, that was just a matter cherry-picking which dimensions to use.

Seems to me evolutionists claims are the ones that don't hold up in light of the facts.

I was an ergonomist for many years. We don't use charts from the 1800s, which are not accurate. Modern anthropometric data is much better and much more usable.

And of course, using just one axis of a skull to estimate age is an error. And when it's used with another species, with different proportions, it becomes something close to fraud.

 

[Vaccine]

Just a bitof cherry-picking to get the results he needed........We don't usecharts from the 1800s, which are not accurate.......And of course,using just one axis of a skull to estimate age is an error. And whenit's used with another species, with different proportions, itbecomes something close to fraud.

I think I should try explaining this further, Parchappe's chart was just one of many charts he used to show Neandertals growth isn't the same as humans. He didn't rely on just one measurement either and used the same modern growth charts the paleontologists did to show their extreme age. I'm the one guilty, not Dr Cuozzo, of cherry-picking since I didn't want to post his entire book. Also, those growth rates have nothing to do with Cuozzo's measurements. It is just a given if Neandertals only lived 40 years, their growth rates are 5x-12x that of humans.

For example: ramus growth for modern humans is 2mm per year. If Neandertals only lived 40 years old their ramus growth would have been 10.3mm per year, 5x faster than humans.

Another example: Lower Facial Height(LFH) growth for modern humans is .063mm per year. If Neandertals only lived 40 years old their LFH growth would have been .81mm per year, 12x faster than humans.

Dr. Cuozzo said we are faced with a decision, either we have to believe they grew at rates 5x-12x faster than humans (apes grow 2x humans) OR they were extremely old, there really is no 3rd option.
Dr. Cuozzo left it to the reader decide and never stated how old he thought Neandertals were. Instead he documented Neandertals grew much slower than humans by several lines of evidence.

A- Jaw muscle development
B- Well-worn teeth
C- Infantile forehead
D- Infantile ear bones
E- Big head, small infant faces
F- Bulbous upper jaw
G- Small lower jaw

For example: Tooth eruption in modern infant growth charts has the time between molar eruption around 9 months. Tooth eruption in Neandertal infants was many years between molars based on wear.

Another example: the rate of tooth enamel loss put Neandertals between 125-159 years old by modern growth charts. This was something the paleontologist completely ignored.

He also used the angle of the face measurements, angle of the jaw measurements, nasolacrimal groove, tympanomastoid fissure, and several features of the teeth.

The rate of tooth enamel loss alone debunks the idea they were 40 years old. He showed by every available growth chart they were between 125-430 years old, but that's if they grew at the exact same rate as modern humans. By showing they grew slower, their ramus growth was probably less than 2mm/year, their LFH was probably less than .81mm/year, which would only make them older than modern charts showed.

Part of his book was exploring what modern humans would look like if they lived to be 900 years old and whether teeth could last that long. He didn't say Neandertals were 900 years old, he presented all the facts for the reader decide. I was convinced.

Dr. Cuozzo was very meticulous, gave the paleontologists every benefit of the doubt, and used x-rays forthe most accurate results, something the paleontologists wouldn't do. They just didn't want to believe anyone could live over 125.

 

[Vaccine]

Chewing hydes developes a special feature in a jaw. Neandertals lack that feature.View attachment 3235View attachment 3236

 

[Vaccine]

More pics of developed jaw feature from chewing hydes, and neandertal jaw lacking it:
View attachment 3237View attachment 3238

 

[Barbarian]

Since you merely produced the assertions, and not the data you claim to support Cuozzo's beliefs, I can only conclude that they are as faulty as his notion that an unfused suture in the lower jaw is not seen in adolescents or adults.

 

[Vaccine]

View attachment 3240I'm not sure what you mean. According to the editor in chief of the American Journel of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthepedics, Thomas Graber DDS, MSD, Ph. D: Between 4 months of age and the end of the first year, the symphyseal cartilage is replaced by bone. If the paloentologists are correct and neandertals only lived to be 40, they aged 5x-12x faster than humans, that line should have been gone when that neandertal was 1 month old. What's your explanation for that line being there?

Dr. Cuozzo's explanation is they aged very slowly and that line would not been replaced by bone until they were a teenager.

 

[Barbarian]

We still see humans with a failure to close the suture. Cuozzo merely assumed that such a condition could not exist in Neandertals.