Re: Common genes do not imply cross-species (human/hominid) breeding

On 03/04/2024 14:29, panther2020 wrote:

We share around half of our genes with the ordinary banana...
 That assuredly does not come from humans BREEDING with bananas...  It most liikely comes from humans EATING bananas, pretty much forever, and probably throughout the universe and not just on  this planet.

The genetic commonalities between humans and bananas mostly (possibly completely) arise from retention with modification from their common ancestor - an early eukaryote. You'll find that the commonalities between humans and bananas are almost identical to those between other mammals and bananas. You could try to explain this as a result of alimentation for great apes (but you would have to explain why it's the same bits of the banana genome got transferred in each instance), or change your story to it coming from early apes, rather than humans, eating bananas, but you'd still have to explain how banana DNA got into New World monkeys (no bananas in South America), cats(obligate carnivores) and dolphins (no bananas in the sea).

 Likewise, the first experience humans ever had with Neanderthals on Earth was watching friends and family members being killed and eaten by them, so that eating a Neanderthal that had been killed in some battle would have just been sending the Neanderthals a message in their own language...

Denny Vendramini's views are not accepted by the great majority of anthropologists and geneticists. You can't use his model as an axiom and make a convincing argument.

 In both cases, what you seem to be talking about is bacterial insertian of genes.

We have a body of knowledge about how horizontal transfer of genes occurs, and about how to recognise occurrences. Alimentation is not a common means of gene transfer, except in parasitic plants, whose tissues are in intimate contact with their hosts at a subcellular level. If you think about it, if alimentation was a regular cause of horizontal transfer of genes to the degree that you postulate, the nested hierarchy of the genome would be badly messed up - fish genes turning up in otters, seals and dolphins, but not in dogs and hippopotami, wheat and rice genes turning up in humans, but not in chimpanzees, and termite genes turning up in anteaters, echidnas and pangolins, but not armadillos and platypuses.
Even if it did occur, what would be transferred would be small sections of the genome, that escaped digestion, passed into the bloodstream, and somehow got incorporated into ova or spermatozoa. In contrast with interbreeding neandertal genetic material enters the human gene pool in chromosome sized chunks, and gets broken up over time through the process of recombination. We can tell how recent the interbreeding was by the size of the remaining chunks of neandertal DNA. We have an ancient Homo sapiens specimen with about 1/16th neandertal ancestry, with chunks of neandertal DNA of a size that implies that the interbreeding was only a few generations back.

 There is a claim that, because some humans have a certain small number of genes in common with Neanderthals, that humans and Neanderthals must have interbred. That amounts to thinking that a Neanderthal male could/would rape a woman and, rather than cooking and eating her afterwards as usual, somehow or other keep her alive long enough to bear a cross-species child, raise that child to reproductive age, and have him/her breed back into human populations without anybody catching on, i.e. the claim is ridiculous.
 In real life:
 Neanderthal females would kill that woman the first time her new owner left her alone for ten minutes.
 The woman wouldn't fare any better than the subjects of the commie attempts to breed humans and apes into super workers in the 1930s.
 Humans would notice the child was different (really different...)
 And humans would kill that child and everybody else like him as part of the same program which killed out the Neanderthal. They would not need DNA tests to determine who to kill for that sort of reason, it would be exceedingly obvious.
 https://youtu.be/mZbmywzGAVs
 In other words, it would be a miracle for something like that to ever have happened once while the claims from Paabo et. al. require it to have been going on all the time. That is, for human/hominid cross-breeding to have left detectable traces in the DNA of modern humans, it would have to have been entirely common.
 One zero-probability event in the history of the universe? Maybe, but not an infinite series of them, i.e. not something that stands everything we know about probability on its head.
 

Congratulations - you've just proved that Denny Vendramini is wrong. (If the observations contradict your premises, your premises are wrong.)
--
alias Ernest Major