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

panther2020 <panther2020@vivaldi.net> wrote:

Again...

 
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.

 
 
All of that rules out the narrative put out by Paabo and others.  The
alternative I propose can not be ruled out so easily.
 
Here is what I think you have to picture. A cromagnon war party fights a
pitched battle with some Neanderthal family group in the late afternoon
or evening and, they greatly outnumber the hominids and have javelins
and atlatls while the hominids are limited to thrusting spears so that
the affair is one sided.  Afterwards, the humans are sitting around a
fire licking any wounds, there are eight or ten neanderthals lying
around dead, and one of them says something like:
 
"Man, this has been a hell of a day, I'm hungry enough to eat just about
anything and I'm not about to go off hunting right now, what the hell
could there be to eat around here??"
 
Think really hard, what do you suspect those guys are eating that night?
 
And, unless they were to somehow  manage to cook one of those hominids
very thoroughly, bacterial gene insertion would be a real possibility.
 

Thus taking “You are what you eat” to absurd extremes. If our genomes were
so susceptible to bacterial gene insertion (how precisely does that
work…step by step?) we would be swamped by a vanishing form of blending
inheritance via horizontal gene transfer. Meat eaters and vegans would
diverge into separate human lineages. Only cannibals would remain
purebloods.

>
Common genes from some very remote ancestor of both humans and hominids
is not an option, since all humans would have the genes, and not just
Europeans and Asians but not Africans as is the case.  Plainly,
Neanderthals were never on he menu in Africa.
 
As for Danny Vendramini, you have to remember that Neanderthal dna is
described as roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee, and
a bit closer to that of the chimp.  You need to ask yourself what you
think such a creature would look like....
 

Manpanzee?