From Newsgroup: talk.origins

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2421768122

This study identified Wolf DNA in the genomes of domestic dogs, so of
the results are surprising. A lot of guard dogs have 0 wolf genetics (Mastiff, Doberman, Saint Bernards) while chihuahua have 0.2%. Some
breed from Finland (Tamaskan) has over 3% wolf genetics and was top of
the list.

You have to go to supplementary data and download dataset 02 to get a
list of breeds and their percent wolf genetics. They didn't do very
many fighting breeds (pitbull did not make the list nor did the popular
Shar pei).

One thing of interest is that over 40% of the wolves that they tested
had domestic dog introgression. One inbred population that recently
went extinct had over 40% domestic dog genetics in the last survivors.
They likely had trouble finding mates at the end.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/2/2025 8:43 PM, RonO wrote:

genomes of domestic dogs

have intelligent (ID) designs involved ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

are humans intelligent ?

https://www.dalekelly.org/supernatural.html

https://www.dalekelly.org/buddhism.html
--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/2/25 8:43 PM, RonO wrote:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2421768122

This study identified Wolf DNA in the genomes of domestic dogs, so of
the results are surprising.-a A lot of guard dogs have 0 wolf genetics (Mastiff, Doberman, Saint Bernards) while chihuahua have 0.2%.-a Some
breed from Finland (Tamaskan) has over 3% wolf genetics and was top of
the list.

Extrapolate this. Dogs & wolves are the same species. They are
officially one single species. So...

How much Neanderthal DNA is in humans?

Some humans have like 4%. Others more closely mirror your example of
the guard dogs but, even in sub Saharan Africans you can find some.

The point, which you no doubt missed, as always, is that humans have
more Neanderthal DNA than you're claiming dogs have wolf DNA.

So, again, I remind you that dogs are one species.

Now pretend you grasp science, pretend you know how science needs to
be consistent or it isn't science and apply what you believe in the
case of dogs to humans.

Conclusion? Neanderthals are modern humans, the same species as us!
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/2/2025 11:24 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/2/25 8:43 PM, RonO wrote:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2421768122

This study identified Wolf DNA in the genomes of domestic dogs, so of
the results are surprising.-a A lot of guard dogs have 0 wolf genetics
(Mastiff, Doberman, Saint Bernards) while chihuahua have 0.2%.-a Some
breed from Finland (Tamaskan) has over 3% wolf genetics and was top of
the list.

Extrapolate this. Dogs & wolves are the same species. They are
officially one single species. So...

How much Neanderthal DNA is in humans?

Some humans have like 4%. Others more closely mirror your example of
the guard dogs but, even in sub Saharan Africans you can find some.

The point, which you no doubt missed, as always, is that humans have
more Neanderthal DNA than you're claiming dogs have wolf DNA.

So, again, I remind you that dogs are one species.

Now pretend you grasp science, pretend you know how science needs to
be consistent or it isn't science and apply what you believe in the
case of dogs to humans.

Conclusion?-a Neanderthals are modern humans, the same species as us!

What a nut job. I have never claimed that Neanderthals are another
species. They are even classified as a sub species of Homo sapiens (H. sapiens neanderthalensis) Your claim is just nuts. I have always
referred to them as evolving from a population that left Africa. The
time of their leaving Africa has varied over the decades, but it seems
to be settling out at around 800,000 years ago. There was another out
of Africa migration around 500,000 years ago, but a viable population
was not established and they were absorbed by the Neanderthals. It is
where the Neanderthal mitochondrial genome comes from and why it is more closely related to Modern humans that stayed in Africa than the
Denisovan mitochondrial genome. This interim interbreeding event is why Neanderthals were found to be more closely related to African modern
humans than are the Denisovans. They can distinguish the 500,000 year
old African sequences within the Neanderthal genomes, and can even
detect them as part of the DNA inherited from Neanderthals in our genomes.

Just a nut job.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/3/25 9:17 AM, RonO wrote:

So, again, I remind you that dogs are one species.

It said:

What a nut job.

Now pretend you grasp science, pretend you know how science needs to
be consistent or it isn't science and apply what you believe in the
case of dogs to humans.

It said:

What a nut job.

What a nut job.-a I have never claimed that Neanderthals are another species.-a They are even classified as a sub species

Lol!

So they're not the same species they're a "Sub species?"

You can't draw a clear line between two very closely related species,
and you think you can draw one between sub species?

What a nut job.

But you're wrong anyone. The view that Neanderthals are the same
species is in the minority. But being an idiot you can't admit that
because that is my position -- Neanderthals are considered a
separate species and they are not.

Try Google, you nut job.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/3/25 6:17 AM, RonO wrote:

On 12/2/2025 11:24 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/2/25 8:43 PM, RonO wrote:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2421768122

This study identified Wolf DNA in the genomes of domestic dogs, so of
the results are surprising.-a A lot of guard dogs have 0 wolf genetics
(Mastiff, Doberman, Saint Bernards) while chihuahua have 0.2%.-a Some
breed from Finland (Tamaskan) has over 3% wolf genetics and was top
of the list.

Extrapolate this. Dogs & wolves are the same species. They are
officially one single species. So...

How much Neanderthal DNA is in humans?

Some humans have like 4%. Others more closely mirror your example of
the guard dogs but, even in sub Saharan Africans you can find some.

The point, which you no doubt missed, as always, is that humans have
more Neanderthal DNA than you're claiming dogs have wolf DNA.

So, again, I remind you that dogs are one species.

Now pretend you grasp science, pretend you know how science needs to
be consistent or it isn't science and apply what you believe in the
case of dogs to humans.

Conclusion?-a Neanderthals are modern humans, the same species as us!

What a nut job.-a I have never claimed that Neanderthals are another species.-a They are even classified as a sub species of Homo sapiens (H. sapiens neanderthalensis)

Not usually. It's a matter of opinion, and opinions vary, but I believe
that the separate species idea is most popular currently. They did
diverge 800kya, after all, which is before modern H. sapiens existed.
And a little introgression between species is no surprise.

> Your claim is just nuts.-a I have always

referred to them as evolving from a population that left Africa.-a The
time of their leaving Africa has varied over the decades, but it seems
to be settling out at around 800,000 years ago.-a There was another out
of Africa migration around 500,000 years ago, but a viable population
was not established and they were absorbed by the Neanderthals.-a It is where the Neanderthal mitochondrial genome comes from and why it is more closely related to Modern humans that stayed in Africa than the
Denisovan mitochondrial genome.-a This interim interbreeding event is why Neanderthals were found to be more closely related to African modern
humans than are the Denisovans.-a They can distinguish the 500,000 year
old African sequences within the Neanderthal genomes, and can even
detect them as part of the DNA inherited from Neanderthals in our genomes.

Just a nut job.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/4/2025 7:36 PM, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/3/25 6:17 AM, RonO wrote:

On 12/2/2025 11:24 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/2/25 8:43 PM, RonO wrote:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2421768122

This study identified Wolf DNA in the genomes of domestic dogs, so
of the results are surprising.-a A lot of guard dogs have 0 wolf
genetics (Mastiff, Doberman, Saint Bernards) while chihuahua have
0.2%.-a Some breed from Finland (Tamaskan) has over 3% wolf genetics
and was top of the list.

Extrapolate this. Dogs & wolves are the same species. They are
officially one single species. So...

How much Neanderthal DNA is in humans?

Some humans have like 4%. Others more closely mirror your example of
the guard dogs but, even in sub Saharan Africans you can find some.

The point, which you no doubt missed, as always, is that humans have
more Neanderthal DNA than you're claiming dogs have wolf DNA.

So, again, I remind you that dogs are one species.

Now pretend you grasp science, pretend you know how science needs to
be consistent or it isn't science and apply what you believe in the
case of dogs to humans.

Conclusion?-a Neanderthals are modern humans, the same species as us!

What a nut job.-a I have never claimed that Neanderthals are another
species.-a They are even classified as a sub species of Homo sapiens
(H. sapiens neanderthalensis)

Not usually. It's a matter of opinion, and opinions vary, but I believe
that the separate species idea is most popular currently. They did
diverge 800kya, after all, which is before modern H. sapiens existed.
And a little introgression between species is no surprise.

When we got the Nenaderthal mitochondrial DNA sequence the estimated divergence was between 250,000 and 500,000. The current estimates using
the genomic DNA sequence places the event that gave the Neanderthals
their mitochondrial DNA closer to 500,000 years ago. It is just
opinion, at this point. Biological evolution doesn't really care about species designations based on phenotypic differences. We were just
noting how Trump has the sloped forehead of Neanderthal and Australoids
have the brow ridges of Denisovans. It is all part of the current Homo species.

Ron Okimoto

Your claim is just nuts.-a I have always

referred to them as evolving from a population that left Africa.-a The
time of their leaving Africa has varied over the decades, but it seems
to be settling out at around 800,000 years ago.-a There was another out
of Africa migration around 500,000 years ago, but a viable population
was not established and they were absorbed by the Neanderthals.-a It is
where the Neanderthal mitochondrial genome comes from and why it is
more closely related to Modern humans that stayed in Africa than the
Denisovan mitochondrial genome.-a This interim interbreeding event is
why Neanderthals were found to be more closely related to African
modern humans than are the Denisovans.-a They can distinguish the
500,000 year old African sequences within the Neanderthal genomes, and
can even detect them as part of the DNA inherited from Neanderthals in
our genomes.

Just a nut job.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

RonO wrote:

When we got the Nenaderthal mitochondrial DNA sequence the estimated divergence was between 250,000 and 500,000.

So it had to be less than that. Period.

They assumed a "Clock Like" rate of mutation which was the same across
all populations. That's insane. It's literally intelligent design or creationism -- "God did it!" -- because it's a denial of evolution i.e. selective pressures.

Our mtDNA is very important and subject to a lot of selective pressures,
or at least it was. As the powerhouse of the cells, the evolution of
the mtDNA was vital to the push north, the adaptation to colder regions.
But at the same time, the mtDNA of populations left behind in warmer
climates was under little to no selective pressures. So...

We had populations that moved out of warmer climates undergoing fairly
rapid evolution of their mtDNA while those in warmer climates saw
little to none, their mtDNA supposedly having long since adapted to
conditions. But, the estimates assume that both were evolving at the
exact same "Clock like" rate. The result is a wildly exaggerated age
for divergence.

There's a similar problem with the y chromosome, though that's only tangentially related to climate...

The current estimates using
the genomic DNA sequence places the event that gave the Neanderthals
their mitochondrial DNA closer to 500,000 years ago.

Never trust molecular dating, or rotating sock puppets posting to
usenet & pretending to be interested in science.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 14:34:02 -0500, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/3/25 9:17 AM, RonO wrote:

So, again, I remind you that dogs are one species.

It said:

What a nut job.

Now pretend you grasp science, pretend you know how science needs to
be consistent or it isn't science and apply what you believe in the
case of dogs to humans.

It said:

What a nut job.

What a nut job.-a I have never claimed that Neanderthals are another
species.-a They are even classified as a sub species

Lol!

So they're not the same species they're a "Sub species?"

You can't draw a clear line between two very closely related species,
and you think you can draw one between sub species?

What a nut job.

But you're wrong anyone. The view that Neanderthals are the same
species is in the minority. But being an idiot you can't admit that
because that is my position -- Neanderthals are considered a
separate species and they are not.

Not sure what JTEM's qualifications are to assert this as fact.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 01:02:13 -0500
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

RonO wrote:

When we got the Nenaderthal mitochondrial DNA sequence the estimated divergence was between 250,000 and 500,000.

So it had to be less than that. Period.

They assumed a "Clock Like" rate of mutation which was the same across
all populations. That's insane. It's literally intelligent design or creationism -- "God did it!" -- because it's a denial of evolution i.e. selective pressures.

Our mtDNA is very important and subject to a lot of selective pressures,
or at least it was. As the powerhouse of the cells, the evolution of
the mtDNA was vital to the push north, the adaptation to colder regions.
But at the same time, the mtDNA of populations left behind in warmer
climates was under little to no selective pressures. So...

We had populations that moved out of warmer climates undergoing fairly
rapid evolution of their mtDNA while those in warmer climates saw
little to none, their mtDNA supposedly having long since adapted to conditions. But, the estimates assume that both were evolving at the
exact same "Clock like" rate. The result is a wildly exaggerated age
for divergence.

There's a similar problem with the y chromosome, though that's only tangentially related to climate...

Well argued, no ranting, so you *can* do it.

The current estimates using
the genomic DNA sequence places the event that gave the Neanderthals
their mitochondrial DNA closer to 500,000 years ago.

Never trust molecular dating, or rotating sock puppets posting to
usenet & pretending to be interested in science.

But not for an entire post, it seems.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/5/2025 12:02 AM, JTEM wrote:

-aRonO wrote:

When we got the Nenaderthal mitochondrial DNA sequence the estimated
divergence was between 250,000 and 500,000.

So it had to be less than that. Period.

Wrong again. No it did not, and it turned out that it was within that
range once they obtained more sequence data. In fact the more accurate estimate based on other sequence data is closer to 500,000 not less than 250,000.

They assumed a "Clock Like" rate of mutation which was the same across
all populations. That's insane. It's literally intelligent design or creationism -- "God did it!" -- because it's a denial of evolution i.e. selective pressures.

More ambiguity probably comes in due to different sequences having
different rates of change and trying to estimate what changes are due to deamination due to the age of the samples. Why do you think that they
give a range? The transistion transversion ratio fo mitocondrial DNA is around 200 to 1 for the D loop region, and deamination causes transitions.

Our mtDNA is very important and subject to a lot of selective pressures,
or at least it was. As the powerhouse of the cells, the evolution of
the mtDNA was vital to the push north, the adaptation to colder regions.
But at the same time, the mtDNA of populations left behind in warmer
climates was under little to no selective pressures. So...

Very few changes would make the mitochondrial DNA more efficient. The
fastest evolving lineages among humans may be accumulating more
mutations because they are defective, and more free radicals are produce causing DNA damage. These lineages seem to be tolerated as long as food
is not limiting. In colder climates they may have produced more body
heat, but at the cost of burning more calories.

We had populations that moved out of warmer climates undergoing fairly
rapid evolution of their mtDNA while those in warmer climates saw
little to none, their mtDNA supposedly having long since adapted to conditions. But, the estimates assume that both were evolving at the
exact same "Clock like" rate. The result is a wildly exaggerated age
for divergence.

Your inference was demonstrated to be wrong in the latest estimates
using genomic DNA, and the bits transferred to Neanderthal at the same
time that the mitochondrial DNA was transferred.

There's a similar problem with the y chromosome, though that's only tangentially related to climate...

The current estimates using the genomic DNA sequence places the event
that gave the Neanderthals their mitochondrial DNA closer to 500,000
years ago.

Never trust molecular dating, or rotating sock puppets posting to
usenet & pretending to be interested in science.

Never trust the guys that can't deal with replicated results and new estimates. How do you think that they can determine that some lineages
are evolving faster than others during a given period of time? I don't
think that there is anybody left that does not know that the clocks are lineage dependent over short periods of time. The crazy thing is how it
seems to even out over long periods of time. TO should recall Denton's stupidity about cytochrome C. It was a protein of only around 100 amino acids, and it was known that substitutions had occurred at all but
around 5 sites among the sequences that were known in the early 1980's.
Denton tried to make a big deal about how all the multicellular animal lineages were about the same distance in terms of amino acid
substitutions from yeast. He claimed that this invalidated evolution,
but all the lineages had been evolving for the same amount of time since
that common ancestor. Not only that, but some of his lineages like
monkeys and humans were the same distance from yeast because their
lineages had split only around 25 million years ago and there were only
two amino acid sequence differences between humans and monkeys. They
were the same distance from yeast because they had been the same lineage
for a billion years before separating only around 25 million years ago.
Humans and fish were a similar distance from yeast even though they had separated 400 million years ago because both lineages had been evolving
for the same amount of time since they shared that common ancestor.

With all the factors working against the molecular clock, it still
works. Calibrating it for each lineage is the major issue. My guess is
that the rate of speciation has the greatest impact on the clock.

Ron Okimoto





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/5/2025 9:29 AM, RonO wrote:

With all the factors working against the molecular clock, it still
works.-a Calibrating it for each lineage is the major issue.-a My guess is that the rate of speciation has the greatest impact on the clock.

I'm guessing you believe Nathaniel T. Jeanson's work is flawed.
--
Science Doesn't Support Darwin. Scientists Do.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/5/2025 9:55 AM, sticks wrote:

On 12/5/2025 9:29 AM, RonO wrote:

With all the factors working against the molecular clock, it still
works.-a Calibrating it for each lineage is the major issue.-a My guess
is that the rate of speciation has the greatest impact on the clock.

I'm guessing you believe Nathaniel T. Jeanson's work is flawed.

If you would present some of this work we could determine if that was
true or not. A search brings up the fact that Jeanson got his PhD
working on human stem cells, so my guess is that he is less of a
molecular geneticist than Denton was when he messed up writing his first
book. He is trying to support his YEC beliefs, so he is likely messing
up his analysis in some way. Behe would likely agree that the molecular
data definitely does not support YEC in any way. At least, Denton had
been working on Human genetics before he incorrectly analyzed the
molecular data. He did not do the analysis correctly and got an answer
that didn't tell him what he thought it was telling him. Even Denton
isn't YEC and he understands that the genetic data will never support
YEC. All the YEC can claim is that their god did it that way.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/4/25 6:51 PM, RonO wrote:

On 12/4/2025 7:36 PM, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/3/25 6:17 AM, RonO wrote:

On 12/2/2025 11:24 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/2/25 8:43 PM, RonO wrote:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2421768122

This study identified Wolf DNA in the genomes of domestic dogs, so
of the results are surprising.-a A lot of guard dogs have 0 wolf
genetics (Mastiff, Doberman, Saint Bernards) while chihuahua have
0.2%.-a Some breed from Finland (Tamaskan) has over 3% wolf genetics >>>>> and was top of the list.

Extrapolate this. Dogs & wolves are the same species. They are
officially one single species. So...

How much Neanderthal DNA is in humans?

Some humans have like 4%. Others more closely mirror your example of
the guard dogs but, even in sub Saharan Africans you can find some.

The point, which you no doubt missed, as always, is that humans have
more Neanderthal DNA than you're claiming dogs have wolf DNA.

So, again, I remind you that dogs are one species.

Now pretend you grasp science, pretend you know how science needs to
be consistent or it isn't science and apply what you believe in the
case of dogs to humans.

Conclusion?-a Neanderthals are modern humans, the same species as us!

What a nut job.-a I have never claimed that Neanderthals are another
species.-a They are even classified as a sub species of Homo sapiens
(H. sapiens neanderthalensis)

Not usually. It's a matter of opinion, and opinions vary, but I
believe that the separate species idea is most popular currently. They
did diverge 800kya, after all, which is before modern H. sapiens
existed. And a little introgression between species is no surprise.

When we got the Nenaderthal mitochondrial DNA sequence the estimated divergence was between 250,000 and 500,000.-a The current estimates using the genomic DNA sequence places the event that gave the Neanderthals
their mitochondrial DNA closer to 500,000 years ago.-a It is just
opinion, at this point.-a Biological evolution doesn't really care about species designations based on phenotypic differences.-a We were just
noting how Trump has the sloped forehead of Neanderthal and Australoids
have the brow ridges of Denisovans.-a It is all part of the current Homo species.

I would suppose that these skull features have nothing to do with actual Neandertals or Denisovans, which are considered different species based
on their high genetic divergence from modern humans. Remember that one
or two migrants per generation are enough to prevent populations from diverging through drift.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/5/2025 3:08 PM, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/4/25 6:51 PM, RonO wrote:

On 12/4/2025 7:36 PM, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/3/25 6:17 AM, RonO wrote:

On 12/2/2025 11:24 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/2/25 8:43 PM, RonO wrote:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2421768122

This study identified Wolf DNA in the genomes of domestic dogs, so >>>>>> of the results are surprising.-a A lot of guard dogs have 0 wolf
genetics (Mastiff, Doberman, Saint Bernards) while chihuahua have >>>>>> 0.2%.-a Some breed from Finland (Tamaskan) has over 3% wolf
genetics and was top of the list.

Extrapolate this. Dogs & wolves are the same species. They are
officially one single species. So...

How much Neanderthal DNA is in humans?

Some humans have like 4%. Others more closely mirror your example of >>>>> the guard dogs but, even in sub Saharan Africans you can find some.

The point, which you no doubt missed, as always, is that humans have >>>>> more Neanderthal DNA than you're claiming dogs have wolf DNA.

So, again, I remind you that dogs are one species.

Now pretend you grasp science, pretend you know how science needs to >>>>> be consistent or it isn't science and apply what you believe in the
case of dogs to humans.

Conclusion?-a Neanderthals are modern humans, the same species as us! >>>>>

What a nut job.-a I have never claimed that Neanderthals are another
species.-a They are even classified as a sub species of Homo sapiens
(H. sapiens neanderthalensis)

Not usually. It's a matter of opinion, and opinions vary, but I
believe that the separate species idea is most popular currently.
They did diverge 800kya, after all, which is before modern H. sapiens
existed. And a little introgression between species is no surprise.

When we got the Nenaderthal mitochondrial DNA sequence the estimated
divergence was between 250,000 and 500,000.-a The current estimates
using the genomic DNA sequence places the event that gave the
Neanderthals their mitochondrial DNA closer to 500,000 years ago.-a It
is just opinion, at this point.-a Biological evolution doesn't really
care about species designations based on phenotypic differences.-a We
were just noting how Trump has the sloped forehead of Neanderthal and
Australoids have the brow ridges of Denisovans.-a It is all part of the
current Homo species.

I would suppose that these skull features have nothing to do with actual Neandertals or Denisovans, which are considered different species based
on their high genetic divergence from modern humans. Remember that one
or two migrants per generation are enough to prevent populations from diverging through drift.

The modern humans with these features have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA
in their genomes. The correlation of the brow ridges with Denisovan DNA
is likely 100% in that the Australoids that are noted for having the
trait have significant amounts of Denisovan DNA in their genomes. Some Indonesians have 12% Denisovan DNA. The Indonesians without brow ridges
are believed to be more recent migrants. When I took Anthropology in
the 1970's there was an anthropologist that was called a racist because
he thought that the Australoids (The old designations were Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid for the racial types) got their brow
ridges from interbreeding with Homo they met in Asia. As far as I know
the trait was considered to be variation taken out of Africa until the Denisovan DNA was found in Australoids. The guy that they were calling
racist (I can't recall his name) noted that Africans did not have the
trait, and neither did the modern humans that left Africa, at least, not
among the fossils that we had like Cro Magnon and the middle eastern
modern human fossils.

If the new skull is Denisovan, there likely will be no controversy as to
where the brow ridges came from. Denisovans may have had more prominent
brow ridges than Neanderthal.

Google claims that Australoid is now outdated and not culturally
sensitive. Instead they are divided up into Indigenous Australians, Aboriginal Australians, Torres Strait Islander, Papuans, Melanesians.
All those groups have the brow ridges that characterized the
Australoids. They have the most Denisovan DNA.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/5/2025 11:53 AM, RonO wrote:

I'm guessing you believe Nathaniel T. Jeanson's work is flawed.

If you would present some of this work we could determine if that was
true or not.

Though I have read a couple of his books, I don't consider myself able
to present them in a fair manner. I just thought you might be aware of
his work. Never mind.
--
Science Doesn't Support Darwin. Scientists Do.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/5/25 4:52 PM, RonO wrote:

On 12/5/2025 3:08 PM, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/4/25 6:51 PM, RonO wrote:

On 12/4/2025 7:36 PM, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/3/25 6:17 AM, RonO wrote:

On 12/2/2025 11:24 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/2/25 8:43 PM, RonO wrote:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2421768122

This study identified Wolf DNA in the genomes of domestic dogs, >>>>>>> so of the results are surprising.-a A lot of guard dogs have 0
wolf genetics (Mastiff, Doberman, Saint Bernards) while chihuahua >>>>>>> have 0.2%.-a Some breed from Finland (Tamaskan) has over 3% wolf >>>>>>> genetics and was top of the list.

Extrapolate this. Dogs & wolves are the same species. They are
officially one single species. So...

How much Neanderthal DNA is in humans?

Some humans have like 4%. Others more closely mirror your example of >>>>>> the guard dogs but, even in sub Saharan Africans you can find some. >>>>>>
The point, which you no doubt missed, as always, is that humans have >>>>>> more Neanderthal DNA than you're claiming dogs have wolf DNA.

So, again, I remind you that dogs are one species.

Now pretend you grasp science, pretend you know how science needs to >>>>>> be consistent or it isn't science and apply what you believe in the >>>>>> case of dogs to humans.

Conclusion?-a Neanderthals are modern humans, the same species as us! >>>>>>

What a nut job.-a I have never claimed that Neanderthals are another >>>>> species.-a They are even classified as a sub species of Homo sapiens >>>>> (H. sapiens neanderthalensis)

Not usually. It's a matter of opinion, and opinions vary, but I
believe that the separate species idea is most popular currently.
They did diverge 800kya, after all, which is before modern H.
sapiens existed. And a little introgression between species is no
surprise.

When we got the Nenaderthal mitochondrial DNA sequence the estimated
divergence was between 250,000 and 500,000.-a The current estimates
using the genomic DNA sequence places the event that gave the
Neanderthals their mitochondrial DNA closer to 500,000 years ago.-a It
is just opinion, at this point.-a Biological evolution doesn't really
care about species designations based on phenotypic differences.-a We
were just noting how Trump has the sloped forehead of Neanderthal and
Australoids have the brow ridges of Denisovans.-a It is all part of
the current Homo species.

I would suppose that these skull features have nothing to do with
actual Neandertals or Denisovans, which are considered different
species based on their high genetic divergence from modern humans.
Remember that one or two migrants per generation are enough to prevent
populations from diverging through drift.

The modern humans with these features have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA
in their genomes.

True, but so do most of the modern humans that lack these features.

The correlation of the brow ridges with Denisovan DNA
is likely 100% in that the Australoids that are noted for having the
trait have significant amounts of Denisovan DNA in their genomes.

I'd like to see evidence of this 100% correlation.

But have we given up on the Neandertal traits and are now concentrating
solely on Denisovan traits?

Some
Indonesians have 12% Denisovan DNA.-a The Indonesians without brow ridges are believed to be more recent migrants.-a When I took Anthropology in
the 1970's there was an anthropologist that was called a racist because
he thought that the Australoids (The old designations were Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid for the racial types) got their brow ridges from interbreeding with Homo they met in Asia.-a As far as I know
the trait was considered to be variation taken out of Africa until the Denisovan DNA was found in Australoids.-a The guy that they were calling racist (I can't recall his name) noted that Africans did not have the
trait, and neither did the modern humans that left Africa, at least, not among the fossils that we had like Cro Magnon and the middle eastern
modern human fossils.

If the new skull is Denisovan, there likely will be no controversy as to where the brow ridges came from.-a Denisovans may have had more prominent brow ridges than Neanderthal.

Google claims that Australoid is now outdated and not culturally sensitive.-a Instead they are divided up into Indigenous Australians, Aboriginal Australians, Torres Strait Islander, Papuans, Melanesians.
All those groups have the brow ridges that characterized the
Australoids.-a They have the most Denisovan DNA.

Do you have a citation for any of that? And is this Denisovan DNA at the
same loci in different people, unlike the Neandertal DNA in Europeans?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/5/2025 6:55 PM, sticks wrote:

On 12/5/2025 11:53 AM, RonO wrote:

I'm guessing you believe Nathaniel T. Jeanson's work is flawed.

If you would present some of this work we could determine if that was
true or not.

Though I have read a couple of his books, I don't consider myself able
to present them in a fair manner.-a I just thought you might be aware of
his work.-a Never mind.

Do not waste your time with this guy. The first article that I looked
up was his Y chromosome analysis. He was trying to have all humans
derived from Noah's Y chromosome. In order to make something up he had
to root the phylogenetic tree incorrectly and he then made up 3 groups
that he claimed were from Noah's son's.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/native-americans-and-noah/

You can tell how awkwardly he mishandled the data by looking at what the
tree actually looks like.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6707464/

They do not show the outgroup for Figure 1. An outgroup is just a
sequence that comes from a closely related species where all the
individuals involved in the phylogenetic analysis (all the human Y chromosomes) share the same common ancestor with the outgroup species.
The outgroup was likely chimps. In the middle of figure 1 you can see
the root to the outgroup in the center of the phylogeny. If Biblical
flood mythology were true Noah would be at the center of the phylogeny
because all extant human Y chromosomes would be descended from Noah.
Jeanson misplaces the root and claims that the true root (not Jeanson's
root) actually is a decending lineage from Ham. Noah's sequence would
be among the longer branch length lineages attributed to Ham. You can
tell that Jeanson's groupings are wrong because of the long branch
lengths under Ham that Jeanson claims is denoting time. Jeanson does
not have Noah producing any more children because the Bible doesn't name
any.

You can tell that he did something wrong with the phylogeny because just
ask yourself why only a couple of Ham's children's descendants show the
same temporal branch lengths of the children of his two brothers with
most of Ham's children showing branch lengths much longer than all their cousins. The length of the branchs is actually sequence differences
between lineages. the A lineage has the greatest sequence divergence
from all the other lineages. You can see why that is from Figure 1 of
the real science paper.

Jeanson's analysis boarders on insanity. The guy likely is insane.

The actual Noahcian phylogeny should show descent from 4 nearly
identical sequences. Noah and his 3 sons. The Y chromosome is less
than 3% of the human genome and we estimate that only 30 to 60 new
mutations are passed on to each offspring from both parents, but usually
more than half come from the father and the mutation rate seems to
increase with age because his sperm producing cells are constantly
dividing while females have produced all their eggs by around 2 or 3
years old. How did Ham produce children with such divergent Y
chromosomes when they might have inherited a single mutation any
generation? The guy is nuts.

What the true phylogeny actually indicates is that if Noah actually
existed then only 2 of his son's may have left any Y chromosome
descendants. One son's descendants never left Africa, and some of the
other son's descendants never left Africa while a portion of them did.
There is no evidence for the existence of 3 male families.

Like mitochondrial maternal lineages there is a constant loss of Y
chromosome lineages over time because once a Y chromosome lineage
produces no male descendants the lineage becomes extinct. You can see
this happening with the loss of surnames. In Japan if you had no sons
you could get someone to marry your daughter and have him take the
family name, but that doesn't work for Y chromosomes. No sons, no Y chromosome in the next generation. From the Genetic's paper you can see
that there has been periodic loss of lineages (coalescence) to one
branch where there should exist many just in the last couple hundred
thousand years. You can see them in the length of branchs to each new node.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/5/2025 7:40 PM, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/5/25 4:52 PM, RonO wrote:

On 12/5/2025 3:08 PM, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/4/25 6:51 PM, RonO wrote:

On 12/4/2025 7:36 PM, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/3/25 6:17 AM, RonO wrote:

On 12/2/2025 11:24 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/2/25 8:43 PM, RonO wrote:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2421768122

This study identified Wolf DNA in the genomes of domestic dogs, >>>>>>>> so of the results are surprising.-a A lot of guard dogs have 0 >>>>>>>> wolf genetics (Mastiff, Doberman, Saint Bernards) while
chihuahua have 0.2%.-a Some breed from Finland (Tamaskan) has >>>>>>>> over 3% wolf genetics and was top of the list.

Extrapolate this. Dogs & wolves are the same species. They are
officially one single species. So...

How much Neanderthal DNA is in humans?

Some humans have like 4%. Others more closely mirror your example of >>>>>>> the guard dogs but, even in sub Saharan Africans you can find some. >>>>>>>
The point, which you no doubt missed, as always, is that humans have >>>>>>> more Neanderthal DNA than you're claiming dogs have wolf DNA.

So, again, I remind you that dogs are one species.

Now pretend you grasp science, pretend you know how science needs to >>>>>>> be consistent or it isn't science and apply what you believe in the >>>>>>> case of dogs to humans.

Conclusion?-a Neanderthals are modern humans, the same species as us! >>>>>>>

What a nut job.-a I have never claimed that Neanderthals are
another species.-a They are even classified as a sub species of
Homo sapiens (H. sapiens neanderthalensis)

Not usually. It's a matter of opinion, and opinions vary, but I
believe that the separate species idea is most popular currently.
They did diverge 800kya, after all, which is before modern H.
sapiens existed. And a little introgression between species is no
surprise.

When we got the Nenaderthal mitochondrial DNA sequence the estimated
divergence was between 250,000 and 500,000.-a The current estimates
using the genomic DNA sequence places the event that gave the
Neanderthals their mitochondrial DNA closer to 500,000 years ago.
It is just opinion, at this point.-a Biological evolution doesn't
really care about species designations based on phenotypic
differences.-a We were just noting how Trump has the sloped forehead
of Neanderthal and Australoids have the brow ridges of Denisovans.
It is all part of the current Homo species.

I would suppose that these skull features have nothing to do with
actual Neandertals or Denisovans, which are considered different
species based on their high genetic divergence from modern humans.
Remember that one or two migrants per generation are enough to
prevent populations from diverging through drift.

The modern humans with these features have Neanderthal and Denisovan
DNA in their genomes.

True, but so do most of the modern humans that lack these features.

The Australoids that have the traits have the most Denisovan DNA. They
seem to have had two doses (Two interbreeding events) of Denisovan DNA.

The correlation of the brow ridges with Denisovan DNA is likely 100%
in that the Australoids that are noted for having the trait have
significant amounts of Denisovan DNA in their genomes.

I'd like to see evidence of this 100% correlation.

Just look it up. The Australoids that have the brow ridges have the
most Denisovan DNA. Some of them have as much as 12%.

But have we given up on the Neandertal traits and are now concentrating solely on Denisovan traits?

The sloped forehead would also be associated with Denisovan and not just Neanderthals. I am just pointing out the Neanderthal and Denisovan
traits that still exist in the population that can easily be seen. They
are easy to distinguish. A light skin gene of Neanderthals is still segregating and is pretty high in some populations like those that made
it to the UK.

Some Indonesians have 12% Denisovan DNA.-a The Indonesians without brow
ridges are believed to be more recent migrants.-a When I took
Anthropology in the 1970's there was an anthropologist that was called
a racist because he thought that the Australoids (The old designations
were Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid for the racial
types) got their brow ridges from interbreeding with Homo they met in
Asia.-a As far as I know the trait was considered to be variation taken
out of Africa until the Denisovan DNA was found in Australoids.-a The
guy that they were calling racist (I can't recall his name) noted that
Africans did not have the trait, and neither did the modern humans
that left Africa, at least, not among the fossils that we had like Cro
Magnon and the middle eastern modern human fossils.

If the new skull is Denisovan, there likely will be no controversy as
to where the brow ridges came from.-a Denisovans may have had more
prominent brow ridges than Neanderthal.

Google claims that Australoid is now outdated and not culturally
sensitive.-a Instead they are divided up into Indigenous Australians,
Aboriginal Australians, Torres Strait Islander, Papuans, Melanesians.
All those groups have the brow ridges that characterized the
Australoids.-a They have the most Denisovan DNA.

Do you have a citation for any of that? And is this Denisovan DNA at the same loci in different people, unlike the Neandertal DNA in Europeans?

It is what has been found. The last paper on Denisovan introgression
that I put up on TO had the distribution and the fact that the
Indonesians and Australians had Denisovan DNA from at least 2 separate interbreeding events. There seems to have been one event in East Asia,
and another involving some of the first introgression group in South
Asia, probably occurring in the Indonesian islands.

It took me one search to find this in the second link provided.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867419302181

QUOTE:
Summary
Genome sequences are known for two archaic homininsrCoNeanderthals and DenisovansrCowhich interbred with anatomically modern humans as they
dispersed out of Africa. We identified high-confidence archaic
haplotypes in 161 new genomes spanning 14 island groups in Island
Southeast Asia and New Guinea and found large stretches of DNA that are inconsistent with a single introgressing Denisovan origin. Instead,
modern Papuans carry hundreds of gene variants from two deeply divergent Denisovan lineages that separated over 350 thousand years ago. Spatial
and temporal structure among these lineages suggest that introgression
from one of these Denisovan groups predominantly took place east of the Wallace line and continued until near the end of the Pleistocene. A
third Denisovan lineage occurs in modern East Asians. This regional
mosaic suggests considerable complexity in archaic contact, with modern
humans interbreeding with multiple Denisovan groups that were
geographically isolated from each other over deep evolutionary time.
END QUOTE:

This is not the same paper that I put up within the last 2 years that
just confirmed these findings.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2