It's amazing how deep you can get when you're not honest huh?!
On the contrary, I find it's extremely easy to be honest. Even in the presence of those who tend to break down sentences word by word and use certain words completely out of context to create a new attack method based on these "creations". It's very entertaining.
Some of the more entertaining attempts even have me making statements I never made.
ChrisBFRPKY forgets that the old game of playing both sides against the middle only works when you have some kind of authority. And he believes he's acquired that authority by skimming Wikipedia every third day or so. Forgetting of course that simply claiming authority isn't the only prerequisite. Actual knowledge and intelligence are also required.
I don't claim any sort of "authority". I wouldn't suggest using WIKI as a direct reference for anything important though. That may lead to problems.
Where you are now? Are you ******* kidding me? You're ****** up dude! YOU'RE LYING! YOU ******* MADE UP THE TOE REFERENCE! Until you provide a link or evidence otherwise showing such, you're a ******* LIAR!
I provided no less than 3 links. If you had read the thread, you would have found them. I'm betting your zeal for attack has overshot your ability to digest the facts required to do so.
Here's one of the articles complete with a pic of the toe bone:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25423498
And in case you can't click the link, or you're expecting others not to, here's a quoting from the article:
"The Neanderthal toe bone was found in the same cave in 2010, though in a deeper layer of sediment that is thought to be about 10,000-20,000 years older. The cave also contains modern human artefacts, meaning that at least three groups of people occupied the cave at different times.
A high quality genome sequence was obtained from the small bone using techniques developed by Prof Svante Paabo and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and it reveals some interesting insights about both the Neanderthals and other human types.
For example, the researchers say, the Neanderthal woman was highly inbred and could have been the offspring of half-siblings who shared the same mother.
Other scenarios are possible though, including that her parents were an uncle and niece or aunt and nephew, a grandparent and grandchild, or double first-cousins (the offspring of two siblings who married siblings).
Comparisons of the genetic sequence of multiple human groups - Neanderthals, Denisovans and modern humans - yielded further insights into their evolutionary relationships.
The results show that Neanderthals and Denisovans were very closely related, and that their common ancestor split off from the ancestors of modern humans about 400,000 years ago. The genome data reveal that Neanderthals and Denisovans diverged about 300,000 years ago.
But it also threw up a surprise result: that the Denisovans interbred with a mysterious fourth group of early humans that were living in Eurasia at the time. Between 2.7 and 5.8% of the Denisovan genome comes from this enigmatic species."
The bolded section is the important part (well besides the fact that these percentages of mystery DNA came from the Neanderthal toe bone)
Later DNA analysis from the Denisovan type specimens (finger bone and teeth) ALSO contain about 1% of this unknown DNA.
This reference can be found at this link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...erges-from-denisovan-genome.html#.VO3hJ3zF-So
From the article:
"That should mean that Denisovans and Neanderthals look equally different from modern humans, but on closer inspection, Reich found that that wasn't the case. "Denisovans appear more distinct from modern humans than Neanderthals," he told the meeting. Specifically, scattered fragments amounting to 1 per cent of the Denisovan genome look much older than the rest of it.
The best explanation is that the Denisovans interbred with an unidentified species, and picked up some of their DNA. Or as Reich puts it: "Denisovans harbour ancestry from an unknown archaic population, unrelated to Neanderthals."
I don't like to lecture those on their shortcomings. I suggest further reading of some educational material would suit you better than blindly calling someone "LIAR" though. Chris B.
If you can't show the toe, you ain't good to go.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71825000/jpg/_71825874_71821638.jpg
Edited by Agatha:
Changed hotlink to regular link. Do not hotlink - rule 5
