From Newsgroup: talk.origins

https://www.science.org/content/article/surprising-partner-preference-found-matings-between-neanderthals-and-modern-humans

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aea6774

There is less Neanderthal X chromosome sequence segregating in extant
modern humans than there there should be if you consider the level of autosomal sequences frequency. There is a lot wrong with their
analysis. For one thing they are assuming that there were a sizable
number of hybridization events that resulted in what Neanderthal DNA we
have in extant modern humans, but they note that there are regions of
the Neanderthal autosomes that are also missing from the extant human population. These might be missing due to negative selection, but some
bits of Neanderthal DNA that have negative consequences are still
segregating in the modern humman population. There have been claims
that if you look at a couple hundred thousand humans that you can
account for up to 80% of the Neanderthal genome, but most of what is segregating accounts for around 20% of the Neanderthal genome. That is
a lot of negative selection that has had to go on. What needs to be
done is to start looking for how many Neanderthal haplotypes are
segregating in the Modern humans. If we only find two, that would mean
that there may have only been a single interbreeding event that accounts
for what we have. By the time Modern humans spread out from the Middle
East the Neanderthal DNA that we have was well mixed in the population
at the current levels. There were likely some founder effects, but the
same 20% of the Neanderthal genome is pretty evenly distributed. There
may not have been very many hybridization events that left descendants.
We have fossils of more recent hybridization events, but it doesn't look
like they left descendants because the Neanderthal DNA that they had is
mostly missing from the extant population. Those hybrids didn't leave
any descendants in the current population or those descendants lost the
same parts of the Neanderthal genome that everyone else lost.

They have the claim that African humans interbred with Neanderthals
(between 250,000 and 500,000 years ago) and that more of the African X chromosome got integrated into the Neanderthal population at that time indicating that the transfer was from females. What they do not
consider is that the African mitochondrial genome took over the
Neanderthal population. At that time there was heavy selection pressure
for maternal transmission. The female progeny of the hybrids with an
African female parent were being selected for. That maternal type took
over the entire Neanderthal population and made the Neanderthals look
more closely related to Modern humans than Densiovans. All the progeny
of African females had an advantage. The hybrid males would have the
African X chromosome and the advantagous maternal type. His progeny
would not have inherited the African maternal type, but they all would
have inherited the African human X chromosome, and the male hybrid would likely have more progeny than his Neanderthal peers and the male hybrids
with a male African parent.

They need to try to figure out how many Neanderthal haplotypes are
segregating in modern humans. If there were only 2 or 3 hybridization
events then the X chromosome could have just been lost by chance due to sex-linked transmission.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins


I originally read the subject line and thought you meant NEANDERTHAL
women, and thought: "NO! No, no, no, no, no! it was Neanderthal MEN!"

On 2/26/26 9:15 PM, RonO wrote:

They have the claim that African humans interbred with Neanderthals
(between 250,000 and 500,000 years ago) and that more of the African X chromosome got integrated into the Neanderthal population at that time indicating that the transfer was from females.

There's another even simpler way to interpret things: It happened the
other way around!

The DNA flowed from Eurasia into Africa...
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 2/26/2026 9:09 PM, JTEM wrote:

I originally read the subject line and thought you meant NEANDERTHAL
women, and thought:-a "NO! No, no, no, no, no! it was Neanderthal MEN!"

On 2/26/26 9:15 PM, RonO wrote:

They have the claim that African humans interbred with Neanderthals
(between 250,000 and 500,000 years ago) and that more of the African X
chromosome got integrated into the Neanderthal population at that time
indicating that the transfer was from females.

There's another even simpler way to interpret things:-a It happened the
other way around!

The DNA flowed from Eurasia into Africa...

That is known to be wrong because most of the Neanderthal DNA did not
make it into Africa. Only the parts that look like they came from
Africa around 250,000 years ago. The bits of African DNA in Neanderthal
still have equivalent bits (just with 250,000 years of additional
changes) in the African population. They do not have the majority of Neanderthal DNA that would have also made the trip back to Africa.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 2/27/26 10:02 AM, RonO wrote:

On 2/26/2026 9:09 PM, JTEM wrote:

I originally read the subject line and thought you meant NEANDERTHAL
women, and thought:-a "NO! No, no, no, no, no! it was Neanderthal MEN!"

On 2/26/26 9:15 PM, RonO wrote:

They have the claim that African humans interbred with Neanderthals
(between 250,000 and 500,000 years ago) and that more of the African
X chromosome got integrated into the Neanderthal population at that
time indicating that the transfer was from females.

There's another even simpler way to interpret things:-a It happened the
other way around!

The DNA flowed from Eurasia into Africa...

That is known to be wrong because most of the Neanderthal DNA did not
make it into Africa.

The problem is that human evolution is intensely complicated and we know
that there was a Eurasian migration into Africa. We know it.

The LM3/Chromosome 11 insert is far, Far, FAR older than any
"Mitochondrial Eve," BILLIONS of people are walking around carrying
it on their Chromosome 11, where it jumped to 8 hundred gazillion
years ago, and it's Eurasian in Origins.

Well. BASED ON HOME THESE THINGS ARE DETERMINED it's Eurasian. BASED
ON EVERYTHING CLAIMED ABOUT DNA IN ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES it's an
Eurasian mtDNA line, it originates in Asia and it was carried into
Africa, where it appears at a significantly reduced frequency...

"Out of Africa" is really only useful post Toba.

I mean, "Out of Africa" happened but relatively recently. There were
severe "Climate Catastrophes," Toba being the worst (by far) and Africa
was well suited to survive. Europe wasn't. Sundaland was Ground Zero
in the case of Toba!

That was the "Eye of the Needle" that all of so called "Modern" DNA
passed through. Doesn't matter what human DNA looked like even 10
seconds before that, Toba filtered most of it out... nearly all of
it.

So, I heavily suspect that what you're seeing here is the filter of
time coupled to population dynamics... interbreeding... this "Modern"
DNA is Eurasian.

Only the parts that look like they came from
Africa around 250,000 years ago.

The problem is, it doesn't look like that. There's no 250k year old
African DNA. None.

DNA sequencing is excellent at telling us WHAT the DNA looks like.
But it can't and doesn't tell us how it got that way. It's pure
conjecture predicated on bias... a-priori assumptions.

Everything is predicated on itself. They ASSUME so called moderns
originated in Africa -- more or less falling out of the sky -- and
interpret everything on that basis. But if you don't assume that
then other interpretations don't just seem real but likely.

The bits of African DNA in Neanderthal
still have equivalent bits (just with 250,000 years of additional
changes) in the African population.

Which means the Neanderthal DNA is 250,000 years older.

If the African DNA has 250,000 years of additional changes, it's
younger. It came 250,000 years AFTER the Neanderthal DNA.

And that makes PERFECT sense if we imagine a migration INTO Africa!

Because if a population is adapted to its environment AND THEN LEAVES
THAT ENVIRONMENT it is under brand new adaptive pressures --
evolutionary "Selection."

See?

Does it mean I'm right? No. But it does mean that there most definitely
are additional AND JUST AS VALID (or more so) ways of interpreting
information.

That's all I'm saying. Long winded.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 2/27/2026 10:37 AM, JTEM wrote:

On 2/27/26 10:02 AM, RonO wrote:

On 2/26/2026 9:09 PM, JTEM wrote:

I originally read the subject line and thought you meant NEANDERTHAL
women, and thought:-a "NO! No, no, no, no, no! it was Neanderthal MEN!"

On 2/26/26 9:15 PM, RonO wrote:

They have the claim that African humans interbred with Neanderthals
(between 250,000 and 500,000 years ago) and that more of the African
X chromosome got integrated into the Neanderthal population at that
time indicating that the transfer was from females.

There's another even simpler way to interpret things:-a It happened the
other way around!

The DNA flowed from Eurasia into Africa...

That is known to be wrong because most of the Neanderthal DNA did not
make it into Africa.

The problem is that human evolution is intensely complicated and we know
that there was a Eurasian migration into Africa. We know it.

The LM3/Chromosome 11 insert is far, Far, FAR older than any
"Mitochondrial Eve," BILLIONS of people are walking around carrying
it on their Chromosome 11, where it jumped to 8 hundred gazillion
years ago, and it's Eurasian in Origins.

The Mungo man DNA was found to be contamination with European modern
human DNA. They literally sequenced the LM3 insert into Chr 11. This
mtDNA insert was obviously made in the ancestors of modern humans while
they were still in Africa before the mitochondrial Eve sequence became
the only surviving linage of our species. The Africans took that chr 11 sequence with them when they left Africa around 60,000 years ago. The
LM3 insert is not of Neanderthal origin.

Well. BASED ON HOME THESE THINGS ARE DETERMINED it's Eurasian. BASED
ON EVERYTHING CLAIMED ABOUT DNA IN ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES it's an
Eurasian mtDNA line, it originates in Asia and it was carried into
Africa, where it appears at a significantly reduced frequency...

The researchers that produced the original Mungo sequences had their
sample contaminated with DNA that was traced back to modern human
individuals of European descent. The contaminating modern human
sequence came from Europe.

"Out of Africa" is really only useful post Toba.

I mean, "Out of Africa" happened but relatively recently. There were
severe "Climate Catastrophes," Toba being the worst (by far) and Africa
was well suited to survive. Europe wasn't. Sundaland was Ground Zero
in the case of Toba!

When the population bottle neck occurred keeps getting pushed further
and further back in time. It is now believed that it occurred a couple hundred thousand years ago and both African and non African populations
were affected by the same event. Neanderthals did not go extinct until
around 30,000 years ago before the glacial maximum around 25,000 years
ago. They went extinct as conditions were getting worse. Toba occurred
around the time that Modern humans were leaving Africa for the second
time. There was a bottle neck for this event as only some of the
genetic variation in Africa managed to leave, but the population that
remained in Africa was not affected by what managed to leave. The real reduction bottle neck occurred over a hundred thousands years before
modern humans left Africa for the second time.

There could be some evidence of genetics coming back into Africa. I'm
not going to look it up for you, but one of the studies that noted the previous migration out of Africa over 250,000 years ago also had
evidence that African genetics was a mix of multiple populations with
some of the mixing with a population that had been separated for over
800,000 years. One mix with this population occurred after the first
modern human migration out of Africa and before the second. They
speculated that the population had somehow maintained isolation in
Africa somehow, but that population could have come back into Africa.
It wasn't Denisovan or Neanderthal, but it could have been Homo erectus
that left Africa over 800,000 years ago. The paper estimated that the population would have had to be isolated for around 900,000 years. My
guess is that if they stayed in Africa, it would be likely that they
remained an isolated population because they did not have the Chr 2
fusion that occurred around that time. Neanderthals and Denisovans have
the Chr 2 fusion that Modern Humans have.

That was the "Eye of the Needle" that all of so called "Modern" DNA
passed through. Doesn't matter what human DNA looked like even 10
seconds before that, Toba filtered most of it out... nearly all of
it.

So, I heavily suspect that what you're seeing here is the filter of
time coupled to population dynamics... interbreeding... this "Modern"
DNA is Eurasian.

There is no doubt that there was a population bottleneck at some time,
but the populations that we have DNA sequence for (Modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans) were all affected. It might have occurred before the Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa. That is how sketchy things remain. Humans have not had the same amount of genetic variation
that other species have for a very long time. We have around 1/5th the standing genetic variation that most species have. Even as decimated as chimps are they still retain 3 times the standing genetic variation as
the human population.

Only the parts that look like they came from Africa around 250,000
years ago.

The problem is, it doesn't look like that. There's no 250k year old
African DNA. None.

There are parts of the Neanderthal genome that look like they diverged
from modern humans 250,000 to 500,000 years ago, but most of it looks
like it diverged from modern humans 500,000 to 800,000 years ago. This
means that the DNA came from Africa before 250,000 years ago, but a
couple hundred thousand years after Neanderthals had left Africa.

DNA sequencing is excellent at telling us WHAT the DNA looks like.
But it can't and doesn't tell us how it got that way. It's pure
conjecture predicated on bias... a-priori assumptions.

Make up another interpretation. Go for it. You have most of the
Neanderthal genome that is as divergent from modern humans as Denisovans
are from modern humans, and you then have a mitochondrial genome for Neanderthals that is much more closely related to modern humans than is
the Denisovan mitochondrial genome, and the bits of nuclear DNA has the
same relationship with modern humans, but is not shared with Denisovans.
There was an interbreeding event over 250,000 years ago between
Africans and Neanderthal that resulted in African DNA introgression into
the nuclear genome and substitution for an African mtDNA. Make another interpretation. Neanderthal and Denisovans only share the parts that
are not more closely related to modern humans.

Everything is predicated on itself. They ASSUME so called moderns
originated in Africa -- more or less falling out of the sky -- and
interpret everything on that basis. But if you don't assume that
then other interpretations don't just seem real but likely.

The first "modern" human fossils are found in Africa. Outside of Africa
you find Neanderthal, Denisovan and Homo erectus. Modern humans did not
fall out of the sky anywhere.

The bits of African DNA in Neanderthal still have equivalent bits
(just with 250,000 years of additional changes) in the African
population.

Which means the Neanderthal DNA is 250,000 years older.

Which means that they started diverging 250,000 years ago. The
populations became isolated from each other, and the sequences started
to diverge independently.

If the African DNA has 250,000 years of additional changes, it's
younger. It came 250,000 years AFTER the Neanderthal DNA.\

You do not understand how molecular evolution works. The same sequence
starts off in both populations, but since the populations are not interbreeding the lineages diverge from each other, just like between
species that are not interbreeding. You end up with two different
sequences a couple of hundred thousand years later, but these two
sequences are still more closely related than is the sequence that
separated several hundred thousand years before them.

And that makes PERFECT sense if we imagine a migration INTO Africa!

It does. You just don't get it.

Because if a population is adapted to its environment AND THEN LEAVES
THAT ENVIRONMENT it is under brand new adaptive pressures --
evolutionary "Selection."

See?

No. Most of the sequence divergence is due to neutral evolution.

Does it mean I'm right? No. But it does mean that there most definitely
are additional AND JUST AS VALID (or more so) ways of interpreting information.

That's all I'm saying. Long winded.

You are wrong. You need to somehow understand the existing data and
deal with reality.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

RonO wrote:

The Mungo man DNA was found to be contamination with European modern
human DNA.-a They literally sequenced the LM3 insert into Chr 11.

Keep in mind I hit "Reply" by mistake. I misread your subject line
and reacted first, read the post second...


First, nobody claimed that it was contamination. What they claimed
is that they were unable to extract DNA and then "Concluded" that the
DNA previously extracted was contamination. But that's not possible.

Our mtDNA is rather fast-changing, relatively speaking. But captured
inside of Chromosome 11 it can no longer change as rapidly as mtDNA
can. Instead, it's mutating at the same (vastly slower) rate of the
Chromosome 11. Which has to result in differences between Mungo Man
and the Chromosome 11 insert. And those differences do exist.

The two do not match. Mungo Man was separated from the mutation event
by a *Very* long time, going by conventional "Dating." His most popular
dating is placed at some 40k years, this particular line is usually
described at maybe 800,000 years ("less than 1 million")...

We would absolutely positively need to see differences -- representing
all the millennia as well as the differing mutation rates -- if this
Mungo Man mtDNA is real, AND WE DO SEE THESE DIFFERENCES!

This
mtDNA insert was obviously made in the ancestors of modern humans while
they were still in Africa

No, nobody believes that. It's definitely a Eurasian line, probably from Sundaland or maybe even China, but you can't claim otherwise without
rejecting the entirety of mtDNA based "Science."

I mean, there's plenty of mtDNA lines and plenty of claims on where &
when they originated, and all that "Science" has to be wrong OR the
LM3 line is Eurasian.

Science is consistent. Once you smash consistency it stops being
science. So, it's Eurasian or there is no science-based ANYTHING on
human mtDNA lineages, but the "Eurasian Origins" was not determined
by some "Different" method than used elsewhere.

The Africans took that chr 11
sequence with them when they left Africa around 60,000 years ago.-a The
LM3 insert is not of Neanderthal origin.

Again, no. This is science, not religion. You can't reject HOW it is
determined to be Eurasian in /Just/ the case of the Chromosome
11/LM3 line. It's found in Africa in very low frequency.

Well. BASED ON HOME THESE THINGS ARE DETERMINED it's Eurasian. BASED
ON EVERYTHING CLAIMED ABOUT DNA IN ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES it's an
Eurasian mtDNA line, it originates in Asia and it was carried into
Africa, where it appears at a significantly reduced frequency...

The researchers that produced the original Mungo sequences had their
sample contaminated with DNA that was traced back to modern human individuals of European descent.

That isn't true at all.

Mungo Man's mtDNA is different. It's not a match to what is found in
any modern humans, within their Chromosome 11. AND the researchers
you speak of claim to have found NOTHING WHAT SO EVER!

They said that they couldn't retrieve ANY samples.

I mean, "Out of Africa" happened but relatively recently. There were
severe "Climate Catastrophes," Toba being the worst (by far) and Africa
was well suited to survive. Europe wasn't. Sundaland was Ground Zero
in the case of Toba!

When the population bottle neck occurred keeps getting pushed further
and further back in time.

No. Toba happened between 70,000 and 80,000 years ago -- without the
Google, I want to say 74,000 is the popular dating.

There were other bottle necks, but speaking SPECIFICALLY about the
one that allowed the "Out of Africa" expansion, it was Toba.

Toba killed off most of humanity. The population that did best is the
African population, and it bounced back the fastest. This allowed an
expansion into the vacuum left behind by Toba.

It is now believed that it occurred a couple
hundred thousand years ago and both African and non African populations
were affected by the same event.

Everyone is always impacted by the same event, when we are talking
about climate catastrophes.

Sundaland would have been it, we'd all be speaking of the "Out of
Sundaland" expansion EXCEPT that Toba was right there! They were
ground zero! But if Toba had been somewhere else they were positioned
perfectly to "Win" the population race.

THE WORST place to be after such an event is the northern hemisphere,
inland. THE BEST place to be is on the Equator, along the coast. But
everyone gets their cages rattled. Some just have far better odds of
succeeding than others...

Neanderthals did not go extinct until
around 30,000 years ago before the glacial maximum around 25,000 years
ago.

Superficially, you can say that. But Neanderthals had been meeting
up with, interbreeding with so called "Moderns" for tens of
thousands of years at that point.

They went extinct as conditions were getting worse.

Campi Flegrei killed them. There were some that clung on but that
is always the case with extinctions...

Alternatively, they never went extinct. Everyone of Eurasian
descent has Neanderthal ancestors.

Toba occurred
around the time that Modern humans were leaving Africa for the second
time.

No. it happened BEFORE the "Out of Africa" migrations. The claim it
was a second migration is circular. It's using the "Out of Africa"
conclusion as the justification for the "Out of Africa" interpretation.

There could be some evidence of genetics coming back into Africa.

The chromosome 11 insert, which is of Eurasian origins, for example.

-a I'm
not going to look it up for you, but one of the studies that noted the previous migration out of Africa over 250,000 years ago also had
evidence that African genetics was a mix of multiple populations with
some of the mixing with a population that had been separated for over 800,000 years.

There is precisely ZERO support for an "Out of Africa" migration a
quarter of a million years ago. Just the opposite. There's plenty of
circular "Logic" though. They assume "Out of Africa" and then read
absolutely everything in the context of "Out of Africa," and then
pretend that this bias is "Evidence" for their conclusion which was
never a conclusion at all, but their starting premise.

So, I heavily suspect that what you're seeing here is the filter of
time coupled to population dynamics... interbreeding... this "Modern"
DNA is Eurasian.

There is no doubt that there was a population bottleneck at some time,
but the populations that we have DNA sequence for (Modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans) were all affected.

EVERYONE who lived EVERYWHERE were impacted. It was a cataclysm.

If Yellowstone blows tomorrow it will release the energy equivalent
to about 100,000 nuclear weapons -- conservatively estimated. Toba
is estimated to have been approximately 2.5 Yellowstones.

Every VEI8 volcano was a "Bottleneck." Every last one. They probably,
on average, happen LESS THAN every 25,000 years. Supposedly we're
overdue for one now. So, in 800,000 years might have been as many as
80... or as few as 32.

Next, ad "Asteroid" strikes! If Tunguska was a once-in-a-century
event, imagine a once-in-ten-thousand-year even, or 100k years...

A once in a million year event? Humans have seen 2 to 3.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 2/27/2026 7:04 PM, JTEM wrote:

-aRonO wrote:

The Mungo man DNA was found to be contamination with European modern
human DNA.-a They literally sequenced the LM3 insert into Chr 11.

Keep in mind I hit "Reply" by mistake. I misread your subject line
and reacted first, read the post second...

First, nobody claimed that it was contamination. What they claimed
is that they were unable to extract DNA and then "Concluded" that the
DNA previously extracted was contamination. But that's not possible.

Our mtDNA is rather fast-changing, relatively speaking. But captured
inside of Chromosome 11 it can no longer change as rapidly as mtDNA
can. Instead, it's mutating at the same (vastly slower) rate of the Chromosome 11. Which has to result in differences between Mungo Man
and the Chromosome 11 insert. And those differences do exist.

The two do not match. Mungo Man was separated from the mutation event
by a *Very* long time, going by conventional "Dating." His most popular dating is placed at some 40k years, this particular line is usually
described at maybe 800,000 years ("less than 1 million")...

We would absolutely positively need to see differences -- representing
all the millennia as well as the differing mutation rates -- if this
Mungo Man mtDNA is real, AND WE DO SEE THESE DIFFERENCES!

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1521066113#:~:text=Abstract,assembled%20two%20complete%20mitochondrial%20genomes.

They did not find Mungo man DNA what they found in the Mungo Man sample
they recovered 5 modern European sequences.

QUOTE:
Two of the remains sampled contained no identifiable human DNA (WLH15
and WLH55), whereas the Mungo Man (WLH3) sample contained no Aboriginal Australian DNA.
END QUOTE:

In the paper they claim that they did find 1.29% human DNA in the Mungo
man sample (WLH3) but it was all modern European.

This is evidence that the previous researchers were dealing with DNA contamination. There wasn't any ancient human DNA to find in any of the
swamp samples. WLH15 and WLH55 had no human DNA sequence identified.

This mtDNA insert was obviously made in the ancestors of modern humans
while they were still in Africa

No, nobody believes that. It's definitely a Eurasian line, probably from Sundaland or maybe even China, but you can't claim otherwise without rejecting the entirety of mtDNA based "Science."

It is not limited to Eurasia. The paper that characterized the insert
in 1995 found it in all populations that they tested including Africa.
10 to 25% of Africans sampled (4 populations, 120 total chromosomes
sampled (60 individuals)).

https://www.nature.com/articles/378489a0

Probably due to founder effects it is found at higher frequencies out of Africa with 78% of native Americans, and 54% in Europeans. Melanisians
had 68%, but only 22 chromosomes were tested.

It is from a mitochondrial genome that existed in Africa after
Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa, but before the mitochodrial Eve lineage existed. That is why it falls outside of extant modern humans mitochodrial lineages, but is more closely related to modern human
sequences than it is to Neanderthal and Denisovan mitochondrial sequences.

I mean, there's plenty of mtDNA lines and plenty of claims on where &
when they originated, and all that "Science" has to be wrong OR the
LM3 line is Eurasian.

No, the evidence is that it is African. It existed in Africa as a mitochondrial genome when the nuclear insertion occurred. The lineage
evolved after the first out of Africa migration 250,000 to 500,000 years
ago, but before the Mitochondrial Eve lineage evolved in Africa.

Science is consistent. Once you smash consistency it stops being
science. So, it's Eurasian or there is no science-based ANYTHING on
human mtDNA lineages, but the "Eurasian Origins" was not determined
by some "Different" method than used elsewhere.

You have been consistently wrong.

The Africans took that chr 11 sequence with them when they left Africa
around 60,000 years ago.-a The LM3 insert is not of Neanderthal origin.

Again, no. This is science, not religion. You can't reject HOW it is determined to be Eurasian in-a /Just/-a the case of the Chromosome
11/LM3 line. It's found in Africa in very low frequency.

So, you admit that it is found in Africa. Where do you think that the mitochondrial sequence evolved? It is not related to the Neanderthal
and Denisovan sequences in any way that it could have evolved out of
Africa. It is more closely related the the African Modern human
mitochondrial sequences than it is to Neanderthal and Denisovan, so
where would it have existed? It existed in Africa, and that is where
the numt event occurred.

Founder effects would account for the difference in frequency that made
it out of Africa. All that would be needed would be to have it drift to
a higher frequency among the individuals that left Africa. Eurasian
frequency ranges from 38% to 65%. Asia and Americas seem to have
populations with higher frequencies than in Europe.

Well. BASED ON HOME THESE THINGS ARE DETERMINED it's Eurasian. BASED
ON EVERYTHING CLAIMED ABOUT DNA IN ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES it's an
Eurasian mtDNA line, it originates in Asia and it was carried into
Africa, where it appears at a significantly reduced frequency...

The researchers that produced the original Mungo sequences had their
sample contaminated with DNA that was traced back to modern human
individuals of European descent.

That isn't true at all.

Read the paper. The only human DNA that was identified in the Mungo
sample was from Europeans, and not native Australians.

Mungo Man's mtDNA is different. It's not a match to what is found in
any modern humans, within their Chromosome 11. AND the researchers
you speak of claim to have found NOTHING WHAT SO EVER!

The difference is only 2 or 3 substitutions, and could be just due to degredation or sequencing error.

They said that they couldn't retrieve ANY samples.

The paper claims that no human DNA was recovered from two of the
samples, but the Mungo man sample had 1.29% human DNA all of European
origin. They did not find any aboriginal sequence.

I mean, "Out of Africa" happened but relatively recently. There were
severe "Climate Catastrophes," Toba being the worst (by far) and Africa
was well suited to survive. Europe wasn't. Sundaland was Ground Zero
in the case of Toba!

When the population bottle neck occurred keeps getting pushed further
and further back in time.

No. Toba happened between 70,000 and 80,000 years ago -- without the
Google, I want to say 74,000 is the popular dating.

There were other bottle necks, but speaking SPECIFICALLY about the
one that allowed the "Out of Africa" expansion, it was Toba.

The expansion out of Africa only reduced the amount of genetic variation because the population that made it out of Africa left a lot of
variation behind, but still took a significan chunk with them. It was
not the bottle neck that everyone talks about that greatly reduced the
human genetic variation. The Date for the exit is moving toward 60,000
years ago from the original 80,000 year estimate. Something changed the conditions that made the exit possible. It is crazy to think that just
a couple hundred kilometers separated the Neanderthals from the Nile
delta. Conditions had to be wet enough for long enough to get a
substantial number of modern humans across that barrier. Some think
that they rafted across to the Arabian peninsula, but any survivors
would face more extensive barriers than just a couple hundred kilometers.

Toba killed off most of humanity. The population that did best is the
African population, and it bounced back the fastest. This allowed an expansion into the vacuum left behind by Toba.

The genetic evidence does not support that. The Bottle neck keeps
getting pushed further and further back in time. Neanderthals and
Denisovans did suffer a similar population bottleneck, but it may have
been the same one when all were the same population in Africa. I do not understand how it could be pushed back that far, but that is what is
being kicked around.

It is now believed that it occurred a couple hundred thousand years
ago and both African and non African populations were affected by the
same event.

Everyone is always impacted by the same event, when we are talking
about climate catastrophes.

Sundaland would have been it, we'd all be speaking of the "Out of
Sundaland" expansion EXCEPT that Toba was right there!-a They were
ground zero! But if Toba had been somewhere else they were positioned perfectly to "Win" the population race.

THE WORST place to be after such an event is the northern hemisphere,
inland. THE BEST place to be is on the Equator, along the coast. But
everyone gets their cages rattled. Some just have far better odds of succeeding than others...

Neanderthals did not go extinct until around 30,000 years ago before
the glacial maximum around 25,000 years ago.

Superficially, you can say that. But Neanderthals had been meeting
up with, interbreeding with so called "Moderns" for tens of
thousands of years at that point.

They went extinct as conditions were getting worse.

Campi Flegrei killed them. There were some that clung on but that
is always the case with extinctions...

Alternatively, they never went extinct. Everyone of Eurasian
descent has Neanderthal ancestors.

Toba occurred around the time that Modern humans were leaving Africa
for the second time.

No. it happened BEFORE the "Out of Africa" migrations. The claim it
was a second migration is circular. It's using the "Out of Africa"
conclusion as the justification for the "Out of Africa" interpretation.

It still falls within the 60,000 to 80,000 estimate, but as I indicated
the dating is moving closer to 60,000, and it did occur after the first migration out of Africa. African DNA got mixed with Neanderthals to a
limited extent, but not with Denisovans. The first migration out of
Africa failed and the survivors were incorporated into the Neanderthal population. They never got far enough to mix with Denisovans. It is
not very likely that a small fraction of Neanderthal DNA took over all
of Africa without most of the Neanderthal genome not also being
incorporated, and this small fraction just happened to be the part of
the Neanderthal genetics that wasn't shared with Denisovans. The DNA
came from Africa and mixed with Neanderthal.

There could be some evidence of genetics coming back into Africa.

The chromosome 11 insert, which is of Eurasian origins, for example.

No, that obviously evolved in Africa and came from Africa.

-a I'm not going to look it up for you, but one of the studies that
noted the previous migration out of Africa over 250,000 years ago also
had evidence that African genetics was a mix of multiple populations
with some of the mixing with a population that had been separated for
over 800,000 years.

There is precisely ZERO support for an "Out of Africa" migration a
quarter of a million years ago. Just the opposite. There's plenty of
circular "Logic" though. They assume "Out of Africa" and then read
absolutely everything in the context of "Out of Africa," and then
pretend that this bias is "Evidence" for their conclusion which was
never a conclusion at all, but their starting premise.

Just keep lying to yourself about the issue instead of look up the papers.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi1768

I put up this paper when it was first published, and you obviously
ignored it.

So, I heavily suspect that what you're seeing here is the filter of
time coupled to population dynamics... interbreeding... this "Modern"
DNA is Eurasian.

There is no doubt that there was a population bottleneck at some time,
but the populations that we have DNA sequence for (Modern humans,
Neanderthals, and Denisovans) were all affected.

EVERYONE who lived EVERYWHERE were impacted. It was a cataclysm.

Chimps and Gorillas were not as severely affected, nor were most of the species on earth. The average species has 5 times the standing genetic diversity that modern humans have and that Neanderthals and Denisovans
had. Chimps have been decimated, but they still have 3 times the
genetic diversity as humans.

If Yellowstone blows tomorrow it will release the energy equivalent
to about 100,000 nuclear weapons -- conservatively estimated. Toba
is estimated to have been approximately 2.5 Yellowstones.

Every VEI8 volcano was a "Bottleneck." Every last one. They probably,
on average, happen LESS THAN every 25,000 years. Supposedly we're
overdue for one now. So, in 800,000 years might have been as many as
80... or as few as 32.

Next, ad "Asteroid" strikes!-a If Tunguska was a once-in-a-century
event, imagine a once-in-ten-thousand-year even, or 100k years...

A once in a million year event?-a Humans have seen 2 to 3.

My take is that the bottle neck for humans including Neanderthals and Denisovans was not a catastrophe, but a speciation event. We know that
all Homo sapiens have the chromosome 2 fusion. Neanderthals and
Denisovans share this chromosome fusion. It might have been fixed in a
very small population, and hybrids with other populations may have been
at a disadvantage. Subsequent events just kept decreasing what had
already fallen to catastrophic levels. If the guys that are claiming
that the Bottle neck may have occurred over 800,000 years ago are onto something, the chromsome 2 fusion event occurred around 900,000 years ago.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2