The Plague of Archaic genes inheritance in modern populations
This page/post is included in this series of posts as an annex because a transition must be made between the "GENEALOGICAL RETROSPECTIVE" and the "PRACTICAL APPLICATION ON DEMOGRAPHICS" Parts in terms of emphasizing the aspect of modern days' miscegenation as a long term's projection of archaic introgression, to a limited extent of course, the presence of ghost Archaic ancestry in African populations will be on the spotlight as well as the Neanderthals and Denisovans archaic ancestry which is more diluted because of the earlier encounters and extensive interactions with modern humans.
The GENEALOGICAL RETROSPECTIVE part was more about interactions between human kinds in terms of genes flow throughout distant history and how proximities and settlements define the genetic fabric of a given population, this post/page will be addressing genes flow in ancient and modern times, the correlation between and the projection of archaic introgression on today's demographics in terms of the focus on the hypothesis/affirmation that today's miscegenation is no different, relatively speaking, than the archaic introgression that happened at the Paleolithic period, because some of today's populations incarnate the leftover genes of theoretically extinct hominins that [Genes] transcended through "ancient to modern" times to end up either isolated or using more advanced human beings as vessels to make a shortcut for evolution (which defies the laws of natural selection that caused evolution and life to happen and thrive on earth), this makes miscegenation as a modern days' light version of archaic introgression.This will lead us to the conclusion this series of posts is about "the resurrection of extinct hominins" because people who inherited archaic genes hijacked modern humans' genome to present a more 'evolved' form of life aka diversity.
The page "Erectus Walks amongst Us" presented a brief remark about the Archaic introgression in African populations, the "Out of Africa event" vs. the "Out of Asia Hypothesis", argued scientific racism basic claim about biodiversity in Africa and "lack of diversity" in today's populations, which presumably suppress the concept of "race" and force the made-up notion of "social construct" on the planet.The difference between archaic ancestry in Africa and Neanderthal genes inheritance in modern humans, the overall idea being that "Erectus Walks Amongst Us" is a metaphorical expression to point out the primitive to not say Archaic nature of African populations.
This page/post's focus will be on the "archaic introgression" projection or "transcendence" (as it is used in this post see definition below) into today's demographics in terms of the miscegenation going on today. Miscegenation is cross-breeding or vertical genes transfer between groups of different racial origins, which is [racial difference] a transcending projection of Archaic introgression on today's populations, and that makes it a modern-days' introgression even archaic to a certain extinct if the concept of race is based on genetics difference between human groups, as every sane person must tend to assume.
Please Note:
The Archaic introgression in this post, it is the projection of the Archaic traits we are talking about as it 'transcended' into modern days isolated populations, and it doesn't have to be in the sense "Archaic genes introgression into modern humans genome", per the classical Anthropological definition of Archaic introgression as it happened with Neanderthals and Denisovans, it [Archaic introgression in this post/blog] refers to genes flow between modern humans and primitive people, because of the size of the surviving populations who inherited significant percentage of Archaic genes translated into traits, and as a consequence, they won't go extinct because they survived through their genes in modern human causing the existence of Semitic races in their different appearances depending on the percentage of Archaic genes inherited and the degree of isolation of populations. Today's Archaic genes flow context is different, they largely overpopulated in their isolated areas or diluted their features in Europe, gained enough power and influence on the locals to create the proper atmosphere for the "GREAT DILUTION" of modern humans' genome by encouraging miscegenation, which is a long term echo of ancient introgression, by pushing for population displacements and replacements, and what was Archaic introgression in stone ages, its happening today, probably in the opposite way under the smoothened denomination of miscegenation or diversity.
Miscegenation: The interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial groups.
Archaic introgression: Describes the incorporation of alleles from one entity (species) into the gene pool of a second, divergent entity (species).
Hominins: Members of the lineage leading to modern humans:
Homo erectus, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo s. sapiens.
Pre-Columbian and Post-Columbian eras: before the arrival of Columbus in 1492 to the new world, and After the discovery of the Americas.
Genes Flow: The exchange of alleles between two or more populations.
(dogs example): One dog from a specific population is allowed to breed within a pure-breeding group, new alleles are brought into the mix. The gene pool is expanded, and new varieties are seen. Thus, the labradoodle has a Labrador mentality, but has Poodle hair.
Transcended (as it is used in this blog/site): projected from the paleolithic period to concretize into today's populations (ignoring the time factor).
"Several studies have provided evidence that extinct species can live on in the genomes of present-day species".
"Ancient introgression events can leave traces of extinct species in present‐day genomes, a phenomenon known as ghost introgression"
Modern humans first evolved in East Africa about 200 thousand years ago. By roughly 70 thousand years ago, they had replaced or marginalized all of the archaic human species. The final remaining archaic populations died out by about 28 thousand years ago. This period of human evolution is confusing because of the diversity of human species, their recurrent migrations, and interbreeding among different species or subspecies, including Homo sapiens. At present, there are no clear lines of demarcation between Homo heidelbergensis and archaic humans, nor between archaic humans and modern Homo sapiens.
~~Jente Ottenburghs
Anthropological background
Evolution and genes flow are not an exact Science
Modern humans first evolved in East Africa about 200 thousand years ago. By roughly 70 thousand years ago, they had replaced or marginalized all of the archaic human species. The final remaining archaic populations died out by about 28 thousand years ago. This period of human evolution is confusing because of the diversity of human species, their recurrent migrations, and interbreeding among different species or subspecies, including Homo sapiens. At present, there are no clear lines of demarcation between Homo heidelbergensis and archaic humans, nor between archaic humans and modern Homo sapiens.When it comes to figuring out exactly how many distinct species of humans existed, it gets complicated pretty quickly, especially because researchers keep unearthing new fossils that end up being totally separate and previously unknown species.
We Homo sapiens didn't used to be alone. Long ago, there was a lot more human diversity; Homo sapiens lived alongside an estimated eight now-extinct species of human about 300,000 years ago, until as recently as 15,000 years ago
"We have one human species right now, and historically, that's really weird," said Nick Longrich, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom. "Not that far back, we weren't that special, but now we're the only ones left."
This is some kind of the none sense scientists are preaching: "Long ago, there was a lot more human diversity, and now, we're the only one left" somehow they are just ignoring Archaic introgression and dilution or absorption of genes, that happened and well recorded. or they are just ignoring isolated populations and judging them as not human enough to be considered as inhabitants of the planet.
Miscegenation: a smoothened aspect of the "brute" Archaic introgression
Archaic introgression is more or less recorded and scientifically proven, there are cases of well-known and recorded genes' flow, and cases that are yet still to be proven, and probably cases that we do not know about but it is reflected in today's populations' genome.
Cases of modern-day's Miscegenation are well known and documented, the practice of genes mixing between 2 different racial groups has known ups and downs, from a taboo punished practice to the hysteria of miscegenation and diversity as a way into modernity.
Archaic ancestry in this post/page does not focalize on the insignificant inheritance of Neanderthals genes, because it does not alter the purity of modern humans' genome, since probably it was supposed to happen, in the sense that homo s. Sapiens' genome will be complete by some Neanderthals infusion without altering its status as the optimal evolutionary stage. It is crucial [inheritance of Neanderthals genes] when it is significant in terms of altering modern humans' features and the exhibition of Archaic traits, which represent what I called in this blog "Semitic races", it englobes all non-African populations that do not present typical modern human traits: Because they inherited significant percentage of Archaic genes.
We are talking about Neanderthals' genes infusion as an archaic introgression transmitted into today's populations, Denisovans' genes to a certain extent as well, because in case of recent days miscegenation, (despite the subject is a long term, more developed projection of a more pronounced archaic introgression), the subject acquires modern features without being truly fully evolved (modern human), as we've seen in previous posts about Jews with modern humans features.
While miscegenation may be considered as a modern day's projection of archaic introgression in terms of the evolutionary gap between human kinds, it is Not an alternative to evolution, same as Semitic races are not modern humans despite their features being diluted.
Retrospective overview on Archaic hominins and introgression
Before addressing archaic hominins and introgression, a brief overview on archaic forms of life s'impose, along with emphasizing the distinction between African and non-African populations.
"African" and "non-African populations"
While addressing the Anthropological ancestry of modern day's populations, a crucial distinction must be made between "sub-Saharan Africans" which will be called "Africans" for conformity reasons, noting that it does not include north African populations, and the rest of the world's population or "none sub-Saharan populations" which englobe all other human beings in the planet who are not "Africans" or Black.It is important to make this distinction because of the special status of Africa and the African populations as the cradle of humanity. The bipedal motion happened in the continent, many evolutionary branches and lineages existed and probably went extinct, probably without leaving any paleoanthropology traces, or are yet to be found.
This gives the African populations an exceptional and ambiguous nature relative to their ancestry, anthropologically speaking, while the "Out of Africa" Event (Assuming the "OoA" as the critical evolutionary event, and not the "Out of Asia", as it was presented in the previous post) was a selective event in the sense that a certain limited groups of hominins who were destined or predisposed to be the ancestors of modern days' modern humans, this will be the cutting edge in making this stratification between "African" and "none African populations", of course, some evident factors such as the overall development of Africa and the African people before the exploration of the continent by Europeans are unmistakable signs of the partial evolutionary state of African populations.
“The signals of introgression in the West African populations that we have analyzed raise questions regarding the identity of the archaic hominin and its interactions with the modern human populations in Africa,” the researchers said.
The "Out of Africa" event, crucial for Evolution
The reason for the focus on this distinction between "African" and "none African populations" is to make a distinction between archaic introgression in Africa, and when it happened "out of Africa". Hominins that migrated out of Africa are a-priori more evolved or predisposed, for such reason that they adventured searching for new territories and resources (ambitious), that makes the introgression in question different than if it happened in Africa. In Africa, there is rich biodiversity beyond the assessment of paleoanthropologists, extinct branches and lineage, (failed experiments perhaps) hominids and probably hominins existed and went extinct without leaving paleoanthropology traces or maybe yet to be found, cross-breeding between different hominins at that primitives' stage is more likely to have happened, which gives the genealogy of the African populations a special status (rich biodiversity), same as modern humans infusion by Neanderthals genes will complete its genome.
Archaic introgression in African populations was addressed in the precedent post/page: "Amongst Us", and it is of lesser importance to this post and to the aspect of Archaic introgression in general because of the specific nature of the African race and their relative isolation in the continent until very recently.
What's crucial is Archaic introgression that happened between modern Humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans to a certain extent, and it happened Out of Africa, was going until 30.0000 years ago probably until more recent times according to different estimates, known ups and down isolation and opening: populations that stayed isolated and population who diluted their Neanderthals traits in modern humans populations.
While introgression from Neanderthals and Denisovans has been well-documented in modern humans Out of Africa, the contribution of archaic hominins to the genetic variation of present-day Africans remains poorly understood....Our analyses of site frequency spectra indicate that these populations derive 2-19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged prior to the split of Neanderthals and modern humans.
...Analyses of these maps reveal segments of archaic ancestry at high frequency in these populations that represent potential targets of adaptive introgression. Our results reveal the substantial contribution of archaic ancestry in shaping the gene pool of present-day African populations.
A 2017 study of ancient DNA from southern Africa investigated 16 ancient genomes from people alive over the last 10,000 years. This showed that the history of African populations was complex. There wasn’t just a single group of humans around in Africa when they expanded out 100,000 years ago.
Interestingly, they suggest that 6%-7% of the genomes of West Africans is archaic in origin. But this archaic ancestry wasn’t Neanderthal or Denisovan. Their model suggested the additional ancestry came from an archaic population for which we don’t currently have a genome.
One sentence summary Multiple present-day African populations inherited genes from an unknown archaic population that diverged before modern humans and Neanderthals split.
From Super-Archaic hominins to Archaic Homo Sapiens: blurred boundaries in anthropology
The story of human evolution, this shows, does not follow a straight line from monkey to ape-man to architect.Rather than emerging from a single "Garden of Eden" 200,000 years ago before spreading throughout Africa and the world, early modern humans were already scattered across the Mother Continent a hundred millennia earlier.
Africa, at the time, would have resembled "a kind of human zoo", said Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, who led the research on five human fossils from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco.
"We are moving further and further away from this linear vision of human evolution with a succession of species, one replacing the other," he said.
"There were probably several groups of hominins existing, overlapping in time... and having, I would say, complex relationships."
Super Archaics groups: The ghost ancestry in humanity gnome
In Science Advances today, Alan Rogers, a population geneticist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and his team identified variations at matching sites in the genomes of different human populations, including Europeans, Asians, Neanderthals, and Denisovans. The team tested eight scenarios of how genes are distributed before and after mixing with another group, to see which scenario best simulated the observed patterns. They conclude that the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans—whom they call Neandersovans—interbred with a “super-archaic” population that separated from other humans about 2 million years ago. Likely candidates include early members of our genus, such as H. erectus or one of its contemporaries. The mixing likely happened outside of Africa, because that’s where both Neanderthals and Denisovans emerged, and it could have taken place at least 600,000 years ago.“I think the super-archaics were in the first wave of hominids who left Africa,” Rogers says. “They stayed in Eurasia, largely isolated from Africans, until 700,000 years ago when Neandersovans left Africa and interbred with them.
Archaic Homo sapiens are Middle Pleistocene hominins that morphologically and behaviorally fall somewhere in between H. erectus and modern H. sapiens.
In general, archaic Homo sapiens were ‘‘admitted to membership in our species because of their almost modern-sized brains, but set off as ‘archaic' because of their primitive-looking cranial morphology" (Cartmill & Smith 2009). The primary morphological characteristics of archaic H. sapiens (Rightmire 2004, 2008) are:1) average cranial capacity (~1,200 cc) and a proportional increase in encephalization that places them between modern H. sapiens (~1,350 cc) and H. erectus s.l. (~1,000 cc);
2) a reduced postorbital constriction, to account for the increase in cranial capacity;
3) the degree of overall cranial robustness somewhere between H. erectus s.l. and H. sapiens;
4) and compared to H. erectus, a more rounded and less angled occipital region.
"At that time," Dr. Mullikin continued, "where the population was greatly reduced, the modern humans migrating out of Africa encountered Neanderthals and interbreeding occurred between the two groups, leaving an additional, but subtle, genetic signature in the out-of-Africa group of modern humans."
As modern humans migrated out of the Middle East after encountering Neanderthals, and dispersed across the globe, they carried Neanderthal DNA with them.
To understand the genomic differences between present-day humans and Neanderthals, the researchers compared subtle differences in the Neanderthal genome to the genomes found in DNA from the five people, as well as to chimpanzee DNA. An analysis of the genetic variation showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to present-day human DNA, and 98.8 percent identical to chimpanzee DNA. Present-day human DNA is also 98.8 percent identical to chimpanzee.While the majority of non-African human ancestry is shared with Africans, non- Africans also possess a small amount of DNA (1.5–2.1%) from Neanderthals. The level of Neanderthal admixture varies in non-Africans; for example it was recently found that the whole-genome sequences of Asian individuals show a larger proportion of Neanderthal ancestry segments than sequences from Europeans. In addition, a small portion of Melanesian, Papuan and Australian ancestry (3–6%) derives from Denisovans and lower amounts of Denisovan ancestry (0.2%) are also found in East Asia.
The current study raises the possibility that Europeans and Asians, who include Neanderthal DNA, may be slightly more distinct from Africans than previously appreciated.
"Non-African populations"==>"Modern humans" and "non Modern humans"
Sequencing the genome of Neanderthals and Denisovans reveals their advanced evolutionary stage, mostly compared to ancient African populations.
As we made a distinction between "African" and "non African" populations above, in "Non African populations", while it is not widely agreed on because of it is debatable and not politically correct, we can make a distinction between "modern humans" and "non modern humans", the African criterion is more evident and commonly used because it is easy to spot the nativity to Africa and the overall African traits, in "non African population" it's a little blurred and ambiguous because of the prevalent of the nativity to Africa criterion in people's mind to make distinction between races, of course, people with a little advanced knowledge about human kinds will recognize that some people present traits that are not modern humans, but their existence at proximity to Europeans created a certain acquaintance to their features, along with the overtime dilution of Archaic traits, that's how Jews and other populations were distinguished of the locals, often treated differentially and even oppressed.
While we distinguish between "African" and "non-African" populations by the well-known African features. Out of Africa, distinguishing between "modern Humans" and "non-modern Humans" is not as spontaneous and intuitive, the visible features may be easily spotted, and confused by the simple suggestion that they are a different 'types' of "modern humans" while it is not the case, the traits that are not typical to modern humans present the signs of "significant inheritance of Archaic gens" mostly Neanderthal and to a narrowed extent, mostly in Asia, Denisovans' genes because we are talking about populations "Out of Africa".What does it mean to have inherited Neanderthals or Denisovans DNA
Neanderthals were very early (archaic) humans who lived in Europe and Western Asia from about 400,000 years ago until they became extinct about 40,000 years ago. Denisovans are another population of early humans who lived in Asia and were distantly related to Neanderthals.
The scenario for the Neanderthal introgression into humans is rather simple. In a hypothetical introgression scenario, a male Neanderthal has a female offspring with a female human individual. This “hybrid” offspring would carry one Neanderthal copy and one human copy for each of her chromosome pairs. Through the independent assortment of chromosomes, the eggs of this hybrid individual would carry a random combination of Neanderthal and human chromosomes. Moreover, because the process of recombination can shuffle genetic material between homologous chromosomes during gamete formation, the Neanderthal chromosomes in her eggs may carry a small portion of human DNA fragments and vice versa. Assuming that this hybrid individual lived and produced offspring with humans, the resulting second generation will be less Neanderthal and more human, carrying a smaller number of Neanderthal pieces in her chromosomes. Also assuming that her offspring successfully produce more offspring, her descendants will increase in numbers in the population, but by each generation, they carry fewer and shorter fragments of Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. Indeed, today we estimate that virtually all Eurasians (billions of individuals) each carry hundreds of different Neanderthal pieces scattered across their chromosomes.
Out of Africa, the Ratio Archaic/Modern genes in crucial.
Modern humans' genome prevails: Evolution 'continues'
A steady stream of studies suggested gene variants from these archaic peoples might raise the risk of depression, blood clotting, diabetes, and other disorders in living people. The archaic DNA may also be altering the shape of our skulls; boosting our immune systems; and influencing our eye color, hair color, and sensitivity to the Sun...
Evolution being a continuous process conditioned by confronting natural constraints and forcing its body's anatomical structure and biologic functions to adapt to harsher conditions by surviving the natural selection encountered while exploring new territories, and as a consequence forging more resistance to the elements, better use of natural resources, greater intelligence, adaptation, and survival skills causing overall changes in structural anatomy, mental development, and the consequencing survival skills, reproduction and thriving.
Next, the researchers calculated the association of the Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA with 271 traits. Unlike most previous studies, the team examined whole genomes, which allowed them to evaluate whether modern human genes were also influencing traits. They found that most traits were better explained by association with modern gene variants. Only five traits were notably influenced by archaic DNA...
While talking about Archaic genes inheritance, when it initially happened between Homo S. Sapiens and Neanderthals or Denisovans, it is primordial to put it in the context of a modern human genome and a continuous evolution, necessarily if the Archaic introgression is relatively significant, as a consequence, we find modern humans in which cases, modern genome prevailed and modern features eclipsed the Archaic traits inherited even in a relatively significant percentage, this is particularly true as far as we are away from Africa and the middle east, where the initial genes flow Homo S. Sapiens/Neanderthals or Denisovan happened, adventuring farther north, while the populations stagnated at the middle east or at proximity to Africa present more pronounced signs of Archaic introgression and traits, simply because those people didn't continue evolving.
That's why we encounter modern humans presenting signs of Neanderthals introgression but modern features overall prevail in conditioning their existence, while people with Archaic traits, still present primitive characteristics because simply they stagnated until they lately cross-bred with modern humans to dilute their features, as it happened with Ashkenazi Jews, or stayed isolated in their native natural habitations.Contrary to previous studies, the researchers found no statistically significant association between archaic DNA and freckles, hair color, eye color, or autoimmune diseases like Crohn disease and lupus. They conclude that Neanderthal DNA only has small effects on complex traits such as height or depression, in which many genes interact. (The team did not examine immune function or cranial shape, for which there is strong evidence of Neanderthal influence.)
But he adds that the relatively small impact of Neanderthal DNA on most traits is not surprising given that our genomes are mostly modern DNA. Max Planck computational biologist Janet Kelso agrees, but says archaic DNA may have different effects in Icelanders than in other populations.
It is to be noted that, when we talk about the percentage of Neanderthals genes inheritance in "Non-African population" at 2-4%, this means that 2 or 4 % inherited in a person in Europe is not the same sequence as if it is inherited in a person in the middle east, Asia or the Americas. Evolution is a continuous process, humans as far as they are from Africa as much they are evolving, and by exchanging genetic materials with kinds (Archaic or not) who they encounter up North, they inherit genes from the locals that adapted to that specific region, either it's adaptation to climate, immunity to disease...
I'm not sure if the evolution process continues, one thing is sure, the natural selection has been discontinued thanks to the globalization of the planet, the only constraints people with an evolutionary deficit (couldn't build a developed nation to sustain their kind) is the struggle to cross the border of a developed nation, and probably long lines to be processed and access to resources.
It seems that Archaic genes have a spirit of their own, as an AI, they're going on in a crusade on modern humans' gene, diluting the planet and hijacking as much modern humans' genome as they can, from America to Europe, now we find them invading up north, Scandinavian nations and even Russia, all the means are good because of corrupted political systems, including rape, as it is widely happening in Sweden.
Evolution = the Divine path to inherit Earth, definitely not diversity.
Based on the latest sentence in bold font, Archaic introgression differs depending on populations, it is likely that Archaic genes are overwhelmed by a more evolved modern genome. Evolution being confronting the elements while adventuring north where the climate is colder, survival per the rule of natural selection causing Humans biologic functions and anatomical structure to adapt to previously confronted constraints, along of course, with the overall development consequent in individuals and groups, aboutissant to the creation of civilizations and modern societies.
Without modern humans' infrastructures, probably they will survive the natural selection, probably not, the conclusion is that there are groups of populations that existed, survived, thrived, and built a civilization in such climate, which would be an extinction factor for other kinds, by submitting the natural selection to modern humans' will, of course, I'm talking about Nordic countries, Scandinavian nations, and Russia, if evolution is surviving the natural selection, then those people survived conditions that will execute an extinction event on other populations. If we consider evolution as the overall development of nations, the Soviet Union was a pioneer in many fields during the cold war era, was eclipsed by the States because of the wickedness and control of Zionist agents on the international scene, mostly Jews plots on the background and spread of mischief to punish Germany, and then the Soviet Union because it competes with the "Archaic genes central" on world hegemony, along with the ambiguous nature of the States founding and mostly it's Archaic genes based demographic composition."And everything that America has not drawn from Europe may well appear worthy of admiration to a juda-ised, mixed race. Europe, on the other hand, sees in it a sign of cultural decay. "
~ Adolf Hitler
Hitler's focus was on the visible traits of Jews and other colored, motivated by the specific nature of Jews behavior and actions on national and international scenes, definitely a reflection of Archaic genes inheritance.
A Side Note about the impact of Archaic genes inheritance on international affairs
This post is not about politics or international affairs, but it is worth mentioning the Archaic core of the US racial groups, either Africans, Native Americans, Asians, or the presence of the largest Jewish population in the world out of Israel, Jewism is not a race but it is often about the Semitic nature of those people than their religious belief. The Soviet Union lost the cold war, it is not because the States are more advanced, but it is because of the wickedness of these people, as cited before Ashkenazi Jews at the center of the US institutions, while being Semitic races (significant inheritance of Archaic genes) they 'evolved' and coexisted with Europeans for millenniums, keeping a low profile until they dilute their features and become mentally mature to compete with modern human. The US will be a hub of racial groups that being oppressed by modern humans since forever, the new world will be where they build their competitive civilization, luring people from all around the world to their ranges, post-WWII a massive wave of Europeans immigrant to America will be the root of the industrialization of the nation. The US is like the niche for all marginalized kinds during humanity history (because of significant Archaic genes inheritance), they built the States to compete with European (modern humans) civilization, this explains the US obsession with world hegemony, and their immediate push and effort to eradicate any opposing pole, as it happened with the Soviet Union, despite being allies during WWII.We are talking about the overall tendency and overwhelming political and cultural orientations of their controlling system and the path the masses' mentality is taking, not about the exceptions. I call it "Zionism: the doctrine of historically oppressed people", oppressed because dominated by modern humans, dominated because they inherited a significant percentage of Archaic genes, even if the term's classical definition is more narrowed than this state of mind submerging the planet, as presented in previous posts in this blog/site, it is a bipolar world: modern humans vs Zionism or if put in the context of these recent posts, Modern humans vs Resurrecting Archaic hominins in modern appearances.
...they just hate modern human purity, because of the oppressive history they've known existing as a marginal class or country, from all backgrounds, being dominated by modern humans throughout history, the US is predominantly a colored nation right now, and they are pushing for the whole planet to go at the same direction, Europe is on good steps in that direction, London has an Indian mayor, same as NYC have a Negro one plus a Negra police commissioner, it is a spiral out of control of people inheriting Archaic traits taking control of the planet, which is an imminent doom to the human race.If we reflect inheritance of Archaic genes on the degree of development of nations or existence and thriving of populations, there is a correlation, that's why the focus on the microscopic aspect of life on earth (Genealogy) is crucial, there is a critical role of cellular life and basic chemical interactions in shaping life as we know it and decide the prosperity or doom of a nation or groups of people depending on the nature of the biological reactions (genes flow) that led to the formation of life in that given geographic location at a certain period of time.
After all, the whole existence of matter, space, and time is originating from the initial Big bang.
From Archaic introgression to miscegenation:
The section above detailed how an introgression from Neanderthal and Denisovans 'transcended' through time to modern days' populations' DNA, and how modern humans' genome prevails over Archaic DNA inheritance, while other kinds reveal more pronounced traits because of the significance of the percentage of the Archaic genes inherited.
Population geneticist Joshua Akey of Princeton University says the discovery of Denisovan DNA in Icelanders is "fascinating." He notes that it likely didn't come from a Denisovan who paddled to Iceland, but from a Neanderthal or modern human who mixed it up with a Denisovan long before present-day Icelanders reached the island.
Genes are immortal, and while they may be diluted, they are there to remind us of an ancient history of existing hominins, if the degree of dilution is weak or insignificant, we end up with a well preserved Archaic ancestry, this is particularly evident in isolated populations or population that been discovered by modern humans lately.
Due to the rich biodiversity in Africa, the fact that the upright posture happened in the continent, many evolutionary branches existed and probably went extinct without concretizing to a Sapien form of life, it is not totally excluded that an archaic introgression may have happened in Africa between homo erectus and hominids from different branch or branches that went extinct. Archaic introgression between homo s. Sapien and Neanderthals is known to have occurred and well recorded, even possible happening between homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus because they coexisted in a large span of time, as well as the briefly recorded cases of Denisovans introgression.
Introgression (or introgressive hybridization) is gene flow from the gene pool of one distinct biological taxon (often a species) to another by hybridization (Anderson & Hubricht, 1938). Though the concept of introgression may seem relatively simple, it refers to a very specific process and can be easily misunderstood. For introgression to occur, two biological entities with a relatively recent common ancestor (e.g., the ancestors of modern humans and Neanderthals) need to split and remain isolated from each other for enough time that their gene pools could become distinctively divergent. Thus, the gene pool of the receiving population often harbors alleles distinguishable as introgressed and non-introgressed.
Modern days miscegenation is genes mixing between 2 or more racial groups as they are defined by today's anthropologists, it is well-manifested post-Columbian era, between groups that before the said era were in total isolation from each other: Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans. Per the definition of Introgression above:
"2 different groups must remain isolated from each other for enough time that their gene pools could become distinctively divergent."
This is why it is crucial to point out the difference between pre and post Columbian eras; the transatlantic slaves' trade and the discovery of the Americas are the core of the subject of this post: "Miscegenation as a modern days projection of Archaic introgression", because it presents the time gap of "isolation between different kinds necessaire for the gene pool of the receiving population to harbors alleles distinguishable as introgressed and non-introgressed."
This will expand recently, to a lesser level anthropologically speaking, through the globalization of the planet and populations movements that the world has known, causing a progressive dilution of Archaic genes, and as a consequence a lesser distinction between alleles of different populations. That's why scientific racism critics present the argument that populations "Out of Africa" are less diversified than in Africa: there is a Global Dilution going on, and in Africa, many evolutionary branches or lineages didn't go fully extinct.
Archaic genes have been inherited in today's populations' genome
Based on the texts above, Anthropology, genes flow, and "evolution" are not an exact science, there are Genetic differences existing today between different racial groups that are rooted all the way back to the Archaic introgression that happened between hominins, that's how Archaic genes been transferred to today's population, it's that percentage of Archaic ancestry inheritance that defines racial groups and the manifestation of the overall primitive (Archaic) or "more evolved" traits, depending on the percentage of inherited archaic genes and the proximity to Africa.Of course, I'm using the term "Archaic" with precaution, because what was Archaic in stone ages is more evolved recently, still the correlation, more advanced genes/primitive kinds (miscegenation) and archaic genes/homo s, sapiens (Archaic introgression) are a juxtaposition or 2 distant occurrences and there is a projection on todays' populations because Archaic genes inheritance is recorded in today's populations' genome, this makes miscegenation as a modern form of Archaic introgression, necessarily if the populations involved present signs of pronounced Archaic introgression along with primitive traits.
Miscegenation is an 'Evolved' stage of Archaic introgression
What follows will probably seem absurd to anthropologists and scientists operating in related fields, because it somehow compares or relates Archaic introgression to today's miscegenation and genes mixing commonly known as diversity.
The idea is to compare today's miscegenation to a modern days projection of Archaic introgression, after all, the evolutionary gap is present in both miscegenation and archaic introgression, the only difference is the time span and chronology in which both cases of genes flow happened. There is miscegenation because there are different races, and there are different races because Archaic genes been transferred to today's populations when the initial archaic introgression happened, the racial difference today is a projection of archaic introgression, the archaic traits are fading out because being absorbed by modern populations' genome: diversity.
Archaic introgression happened between different hominins who exited Africa and are the result of different evolutionary lineages (We ignore the extreme scenario of Archaic introgression between different branches, that may have eventually happened in Africa because they're englobed by the "African" Ancestry or hominins or kinds that "didn't exit Africa."), miscegenation is happening between different races who are described as all modern humans by scientific racism critics, for conformity reasons and to adhere to political correctness standards, which dictate how people are supposed to think notwithstanding any rational, previously proved scientific reasonings and being disapproved because it hurt some kinds' feelings, which is bad for this "form of life" agenda of diluting the planet, somehow pretending that modern humans do not exist, and race is simply a "social construct".The earliest fossil evidence of early modern humans appears in Africa around 300,000 years ago, with the earliest genetic splits among modern people, according to some evidence, dating to around the same time. Sustained archaic human admixture with modern humans is known to have taken place both in Africa and (following the recent Out-Of-Africa expansion) in Eurasia, between about 100,000 and 30,000 years ago.
30.000 ya is a long period of time, wait until you compare it to 14 B years.
People may argue that you can't relate in any acceptable way archaic introgression that happened during the Paleolithic up to the Upper Paleolithic eras to today's genes mixing because they are totally 2 different contexts and not related in any way anthropologically speaking.
This seems to be a fair opinion, it is like comparing genetic mutations of dinosaurs to domestic dogs evolving from wolves, totally unrelated contexts.
If we put Anthropology, paleoanthropology, genealogy, and genetic materials testing based scientific reasoning aside, we resonate in an abstract more simplified context of more evolved genes to less evolved (classical Evolution poster), such as a mathematics scale which simply advances on a numeric scale from smaller values to bigger values in the evolutionary path, from the great ape to modern humans, more evolved genes are accentuating as far as we're going toward modern humans stage, genes get less evolved or archaic as long as we are going back to the great ape stage.There is no sharp edge between modern man and archaic humans, this is the principle of evolution after all, more evolved or modern human vs less evolved beings going all the way back to the great ape, this is an extremely simplified scheme of course because modern human emerged 300,000 years ago, many hominids existed (failed experiments in a sarcastic ton) all the way up pushed back to 4 million years ago, when the bipedalism kicked-in in primates.
Homo erectus is the most likely ancient relative of humans to be that ancestor. Now extinct except for fragments of DNA that show up in some modern human samples, these proto-humans were the first Homo sapiens relatives that showed body proportions similar to what you see when you look in the mirror. Unlike earlier hominids, the arms and legs of Homo erectus had evolved to be shorter than its torso. They were also the first hominids believed to have migrated out of Africa. This strengthens the case for interbreeding with Denisovans and Neanderthals, especially Denisovans.
From Archaic introgression to miscegenation: everything is relative
The reason for insisting on comparing Archaic introgression to today's diversity or miscegenation is to prove scientific racism critics wrong when they argue about the term "race" being a "social construct" with no genetical or whatsoever scientific argument to support the difference between different groups, they present the affirmation that today's populations as a whole are modern humans or homo s. Sapien just looking different because they evolved or existed under different constraints.
While the Archaic introgression is genes exchange between different distant hominins, after the OoA event or OoAsia depending on what theory you consider, in the same or probably different evolutionary lineages, talking about Homo s. Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans, it is even more hardcore when it eventually happened in Africa, presumably inter-branches introgression, this is not of great concern for us because Africans as a race, while not considered Archaic humans and being a part of modern humans by political correctness activists, they are an advanced stage of the homo erectus/archaic stage of homo Sapien, there is no "missing link" or sharp boundary between "being modern human" and "being our direct ancestor the Homo erectus", Evolution is a continuous complex process, of course, we are talking about African at their pure racial state before mixing with modern humans.What's more intriguing is the Archaic introgression that happened between homo s. Sapiens and Neanderthals, because while African ancestry in miscegenation may be evident to the naked eyes, Archaic introgression projected from Neanderthals and other extinct hominins' DNA (Denisovans as far as paleoanthropology findings proved) on today's populations is not as obvious as African ancestry, or people mostly focused on skin color before Darwinism and related theories start influencing people's opinions.
Transitivity law in Anthropology
Archaic introgression does not have to be in terms of genes Flow between archaic hominins and modern humans. Miscegenation is some form of archaic introgression: Miscegenation is cross-breeding between modern humans and primitive kinds. Those people are primitive because they inherited a significant percentage of archaic genes, so by applying the transitivity law in anthropology, there is Archaic genes flow in these modern days' Miscegenation.
(1)Miscegenation = cross-breeding between modern humans and primitive kinds
(2)/Primitive kinds are primitive because ==> inherited Archaic genes
(1)+(2)=>(3)Miscegenation = cross-breeding between modern humans and Archaic genes
(3)=>Archaic introgression (modern days)
The reason for relating the archaic introgression to today's miscegenation is to project and compare the initial Archaic infusion on the cross-breeding and miscegenation that is happening today. The purpose is to suggest and present the hypothesis that Archaic genes are still around in a significant percentage causing the visible primitive traits reflecting a pronounced archaic ancestry, these are signs of an evolutionary deficit, not climatic constraints, and miscegenation is just a light form, a modern days' form of the archaic introgression that happened in the upper Paleolithic era and beyond.This is not solely about inheriting Neanderthals genes, which is well documented. It is about human kinds that exist today and are not modern humans or Homo s. Sapien, necessarily isolated groups before the Colombian Era, the miscegenation mania and the push for diversity and open borders will cause the cited Archaic genes to be dispersed in the modern humans' gene pool, it is a strait projection of Archaic genes in a relatively advanced stage (Primitive kinds), resurfacing in modern appearances (resurrection of extinct Hominins).
It is scientifically proven that different human kinds existed before the formation of today's demographics, people accepted the unfounded fact that the world's populations are all homo s. Sapien, for conformity reasons and to appease the rage of political correctness advocate.
The subject of this page/post is archaic introgression projection on today demographics in the form of modern days miscegenation, well documented archaic introgression as well as unproven genes flow between extinct hominins, genes are like a virus, it can hijack a vessel or a host body and 'transcend' through distant times to today's populations, either it will be diluted in modern populations' genome and absorbed or will stay isolated in quasi Archaic forms.Post the Colombian era it is a new period of relative archaic introgression in terms of cross-breeding between populations that been isolated until recent history and modern humans, isolation will cause a genetic gap which, while it is called today miscegenation, if Archaic genes are involved in a significant percentage because inherited in a significant percentage and diluted in modern humans' genome, it resembles a light or 'evolved' form of an archaic introgression.
Archaic introgression/miscegenation put in a Cosmologic Retrospective
It seems that it is absurd to make such a comparison between brute forms of life using stone tools mating with each other and exchanging genetic materials and today's modern humanity miscegenation aka diversity.
If we put both events "archaic introgression" and 'miscegenation" in a retrospective context of the formation of the Universe from the big bang, formation of galaxies and planets, development of life on earth from a simple unicellular form to the biodiversity we see today or that existed during the first steps of formation of complex forms of life on Erath, from a simple beginning to the complexity of life on Earth as it is today.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers
Having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one
And that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity
From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been
And are being, evolved.
~Nightwish
This is not to try to blow this comparison out of proportion by invoking the naissance of the universe and cosmology in an anthropological context to make it somehow appealing because it is presented in an infinite perspective, seemingly trying to deflect the attention about the totally different contexts and the absence of direct genetical correlation between the 2 events anthropologically speaking of course, but while I'm presenting the comparison in an abstract context, in terms of more evolved genes and archaic (or less evolved) genes mixing in totally different evolutionary panoramas, the contextual correlation is manifested through the insignificant of the time frame separating the 2 contexts of genes mixing, necessarily put in a cosmic infinite retrospective, because, after all, the biodiversity we see today, is originated from the initial big bang, according to Astronomy, it is infinitely insignificant if put in the time frame of the formation of the universe.The universe is about 13.8 billion years old, according to new research recently published by an international team of astrophysicists.
This light, the "afterglow" of the Big Bang, is known as the cosmic microwave background and marks a time 380,000 years after the universe’s birth when protons and electrons joined to form the first atoms.
This is why talking about genes mixing in an abstract context, because the time frame separating today's miscegenation and archaic introgression is insignificant, if put in a cosmological perspective, there is a correlation between all events -including in anthropology- (for every action there is a reaction) that happened since the big-bang to modern days technology passing by the apparition of life on earth, the bipedal motion, and the upright posture.
The ultimate purpose is to demonstrate that Archaic ancestry is still present in today's population, certes, to a smoothened 'evolved' level but it's there, present in today's populations' genome and reflected on their appearances, actions, and degree of development.
Anthropology time measuring is microscopic in a cosmology perspective
Dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago (at the end of the Cretaceous Period), after living on Earth for about 165 million years. If all of Earth's time from the very beginning of the dinosaurs to today were compressed into 365 days (one calendar year), the dinosaurs appeared January 1 and became extinct the third week of September. (Using this same time scale, the Earth would have formed approximately 18.5 years earlier.) Using the same scale, people (Homo sapiens) have been on earth only since December 31 (New Year's eve). The dinosaurs' long period of dominance certainly makes them unqualified successes in the history of life on Earth.
The focus on this correlation between the archaic introgression that happened at the stone ages and modern days' miscegenation is because of the continuity and correlation between the events that caused life as we know it today to happen from the initial big bang to today's digitalization of life, it is 0.864 of a second of time span if we consider that the total time span since the big bang is 12 hours, which is really minuscule, voir insignificant, to not consider what happened 300,000 years ago or so having any correlation or impact on today's genetics, and that an Archaic introgression transited into today's population is greater from the known and proven 2-4% of Neanderthals genes, Denisovans and other suspected case of archaic genes infusion, the affirmation here is this is really an insignificant time span to get blurred by the thousands of years ago and consider that: that's ancient unrecorded history have no impact on today's populations' genealogy, and we are far beyond and over that Archaic phases just because people are wearing clothes, mixed with homo s. Sapiens genes and carrying modern humans made iPhones.
Assuming that today's population and extinct hominins are not related in anyway just because of the technological progress we made and new appearances along with the "Great Dilution" going-on is denying the laws by which the Universe keeps its equilibrium, and that all forms of life originated, developed, and evolved from the initial Big Bang.
It took 13.8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99.998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0.002% of the Universe.
This is not to go in a total hysteria about Archaic introgression projected into today's demographics in the form of miscegenation, and trying to reflect paleoanthropology findings on today's populations' genetics may be considered absurd anthropologically speaking, but it must be some correlation or projection of Archaic genes on today's population, beyond the results of sequencing DNA, but translated into actual archaic traits reflected into the primitive nature of some populations, because as we've seen above, Anthropology is not an exact science, there was a whole lot of genetic materials' exchange going on to narrow today's populations' genealogy to the Homo S. Sapien genome.While talking about hominins gone extinct, happening of cross-breeding with what will evolve into modern humans (Homo s. Sapiens), archaic introgression is proven to have happened with at least 2 extinct hominins, other possible archaic introgressions are yet to be proven, modern humans and homo erectus coexisted in a relatively large span of time, and there is Ghost Archaic introgression in African populations.
There were archaic hominins, super Archaics, and homo s. Sapiens, Archaic introgression happened, there are modern humans and partially evolved kinds, miscegenation is happening. Modern humans are a projection of homo s sapiens, primitive kinds are projections of archaic hominins with modern humans' genes infusion varying depending on the percentage of the archaic ancestry inherited.In archaic introgression, genes flow happened both ways, the result is homo s. Sapien inheriting different percentages of archaic genes, and it is how significant that percentage that defines Modern Humans from Semitic Races, on the other way, Archaic hominins will see a modern genes infusion which will sustain the survival of their kind, they will evolve more or less depending on their proximity to modern humans (Europe) and the percentage of modern genes infusion. While genes flow happened with Asians because of proximity to Europe, Native Americans and Africans stayed in isolation and kept their relative archaic traits until the discovery of the new world.
Reflecting introgression on modern days' miscegenation, we see the same scenario at a decreased extremity because the archaic features tend to dissolve over time, populations movements make genes flow more frequent and dispersed on the planet, in miscegenation we witness genes flow between modern humans projection of homo s. sapiens and primitive kinds with more pronounced archaic traits, caused by the geographic isolation of modern humans, this is like a second phase of genes flow between homo s. Sapiens, and Archaic kinds, with the impact of the time factor in terms of tens of thousands of years and all the changes that may have occurred, from relative evolution and occasional genes flow from other isolated populations, which will know it's peak after the discovery of the new world and getting extreme in recent days' globalization and diversity mania englobing the planet.Please Note:
It is to be considered the nature of Neanderthals and yet to be proven that of Denisovans: Neanderthals have nothing of the cavemen popular stereotype, they were smart, bigger brain than modern humans, developed art, culture, and life in society and organizational skill, survived harsh climates for a long period of time, so when we use the term Archaic genes, or inheritance of Archaic genes, it must not be taken as an insult or degradation, we were Archaic once, we competed with Neanderthals for resources, and outlast them in Europe, not before they survive through their genes, or in isolation improved by limited modern humans genes infusion (Archaic genes overwhelmed modern genome: significant inheritance of Archaic genes). People must be proud of their Neanderthals features, necessarily after this new phase of interaction post the Colombian era, and the reverse Dilution going on today.
Note de conclusion: The Plague of Archaic genes
God, the supreme being, the great designer or any denomination you have for the orchestrator of the Universe's balance and life on Earth, intended for modern humans to inherit the planet, thrive, and uncover its secrets and mysteries, leading to all the progress modern humans made, and that will not happen unless we evolve to the ultimate form of life.
This is why modern humans were divine before diversity and corruption of morals by Zionism crusade on every decency and family value ever transmitted through generations as God's word, they are even contesting the 2 genders at the origin of life. Brief, God intended for humans to inherit Earth by evolving definitely not by surviving on other humans' resources and stagnating, same as we see movements of populations resembling an exodus of Hominins, not to explore new territories, uncover resources, thrive, and prosper, but to live on modern humans' resources, dilute them and use cross-breeding as a shortcut for evolution which is [miscegenation] the ultimate sin.
Evolution happened because Hominins adventured and faced natural and other constraints, which caused an overall progressive change and adaptation, what we are witnessing today of populations displacements and replacement, mostly people coming from a more pronounced Archaic traits population pouring into modern humans countries, is totally against the laws of nature that caused life to happen on earth, those people are exploring new territories not to create resources, survive, advance, and develop their kinds but to live on modern humans resources, social security systems, and development, this is not causing any positive change for both the locals and the invading 'Hominis' (Put in the context of this post, Anthropology, introgression and miscegenation) but causing the locals to downgrade their standards to accommodate the lower forms of life amongst them, they have to adjust to, because there are policies passed by early thinkers who inherited significant percentage of Archaic genes as well, but they are different because they coexisted with modern humans in Europe long enough to dilute their features, develop mental abilities digne of modern humans, while they are hosting the spirit of an Archaic beastThis is totally against the laws of nature and the principle by which the universe keeps its equilibrium and the long-term effects are imminent doom of Humanity because miscegenation is not an alternative to evolution as we will see in the next part.
No comments:
Post a Comment