Genome of Ancient Denisovans May Help Clarify Human Evolution

Rosie Mestel, Los Angeles Times, August 30, 2012

Our ancestors didn’t walk alone: Neanderthals and other ancient peoples shared Earth with them tens of thousands of years ago.

Now, using new technology, scientists have sequenced with high precision the genome of one of those close but little-known relatives: an extinct people known as the Denisovans, who lived in and around modern-day Siberia.

The Denisovan genome, reported online Thursday in the journal Science, was derived from tiny quantities of shredded DNA extracted from a finger bone found in a Russian cave in 2008, as well as a tooth found later.

What is striking, scientists said, is that it is every bit as detailed as a sequence generated with a fresh blood or saliva sample from someone alive today.

Analysis of the genome and comparisons with ours and the Neanderthals’ will offer insights into the history of Homo sapiens—who we mated with, where and when—as well as the unique genetic changes that make modern humans who they are, scientists said.

Study leader Svante Paabo, a pioneer in decoding ancient genomes, said it would take biologists decades to understand the meaning of all these tiny differences.


Their analysis also suggests that the Denisovans had dark skin, brown hair and brown eyes, but scientists can’t yet say much more than that about their appearance.

The advance hinged on new techniques designed to investigate scant and highly degraded genetic material found in fossils. Their application to these and other specimens promises to draw back the curtain on our species’ complicated and much-debated history, said John Hawks, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, who wasn’t involved in the study.


The evolutionary path of humans is in many respects still mysterious, and the exact timing of events is uncertain. But the story goes something like this: Ancestors of humans emerged in Africa and migrated out to the rest of the world in several successive waves.

The first globe-trotter was Homo erectus, whose trek began 1 million to 2 million years ago. Then came the ancestor of the Neanderthals and Denisovans, who left Africa as far back as 800,000 years ago and replaced or interbred with descendants of Homo erectus.

The third wave of people, Homo sapiens, left Africa perhaps 100,000 years ago and sometimes mated with the Neanderthals and Denisovans they encountered. The result is you and me and everyone else on the planet.

The new genome gives scientists a sense of just how much of our genomes we owe to our extinct relatives. About 3% to 5% of the DNA in people native to Papua New Guinea, Australia, the Philippines and other islands nearby came from Denisovans, the study found, confirming reports based on a draft version of the Denisovan genome. The authors of the study didn’t find any significant contribution of Denisovans to the DNA of people from mainland Eurasia, however.

The new gene-sequencing techniques also allowed scientists to more precisely calculate how much of modern humans’ DNA came not from Denisovans but Neanderthals. They found, to their puzzlement, that Native Americans and people in East Asia have more Neanderthal DNA than do people whose ancestors are from Europe, where most Neanderthals lived.


In another first, the authors used the DNA sequence to estimate the age of the Denisovan pinkie finger bone.

They started by counting up all the tiny genetic changes that have accrued in the genomes of both modern humans and Denisovans since our lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees 6.5 million years ago. Then they compared the two numbers.

Genetic changes build up regularly through the ages, like the ticking of a clock, so the tally allows scientists to estimate the passage of time. Not surprisingly, the Denisovan sample had amassed fewer changes than its human counterparts. From the difference, the authors estimated that our ancient relative, believed to be a female child, met her end somewhere between 74,000 and 82,000 years ago.

The authors used the same approach to estimate how long ago our lineage branched away from the line that led to the Denisovans and Neanderthals. It happened somewhere between 170,000 and 700,000 years ago, they concluded.

The range is broad because the modern DNA revolution has overturned notions of how fast the internal genetic clock is ticking, said study coauthor Matthias Meyer.


Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • It is almost miraculous that we are learning so much about our ancient origins. And it is priceless to have objective FACTS about who and what we are. 

  • Brianviejo

    There is an entertaining website called whitewatch, which details crime committed by white people.  Many who log on there refer to us as “neanderthals”.  I bet that we should be thankful to have that part of our genetic heritage. We are probably better off for it. 

    •  ahahahahahahahaha

      Good.  By calling us neanderthals, and compiling actions by us, they are admitting that we exist.  Not a very big step from there to the idea that we should be allowed to live in our own countries doing whatever white people do.

    • Sherman_McCoy

      That’s a joke.  I’ll bet they even claim that while whites make up about 60% of the US population, we bes ‘sonsible for over 120% o’ de crimes.

    • Djinn42

       There is also a hate site called blackfootsoldier where they love to refer to us as “reptilian”

  • frmore

    The fairly recent introgression in Africa of a late pleistocene hominid with sub-saharans only 20,000 years ago is much more interesting. It just doesn’t get the press that this or the Neanderthal admixture with Europeans or Asians did. And it never will because it’s much more than 3% to 5%.

    • CoweringCoward

       Do you by chance have a link to more info on this.

      • frmore

        Here’s one:

        With Skhul & Qafzeh-type, Iwo Eleru, Omo and other yet unknown archaic hominids, I’ve read it is up to 20%. Obviously, the huge genetic diversity in Africa is in large part a result of this introgression- not a vast gene pool of modern humans percolating uninterrupted for 200K years. Most are skittish about such revelations. It looks like proto-humans left Africa, evolved and then came back into Africa where they admixed with who they found.

    • JohnEngelman

      Caucasians evolved out of Africa in the Near East and Europe. After they developed agriculture 10,000 years ago some of them crossed the Sinai Peninsula and settled the Nile valley and the Nile delta. They displaced the Negroes who were there, and eventually developed the Egyptian civilization five thousand years ago. 

  • JohnEngelman

    This modifies the out of Africa theory without disproving it. All of us who are not Negroes derive virtually all of our uniquely human genes from a fairly small number of modern humans who left Africa about 70,000 years ago. Those ancestors looked vastly more Negro than Nordic. Afterwards they picked up a few genes from humans who were considerably less intelligent than any of the surviving races. 
    Until the beginning of agriculture in the Near East 10,000 years ago human evolution was moving faster in Africa than out of Africa. This is because those in Africa had much more genetic diversity than those out of Africa. They also had greater numbers. A large gene pool will usually evolve faster than a small gene poll because there is more room for beneficial mutations to spread.
    Negroes still have considerably more genetic diversity than all the other races combined. This means they can evolve faster. Conceivably the next race of super humans will evolve in Africa and spread throughout the world, displacing the less evolved races. This is unlikely, however, because of miscegenation. Within a few thousand years there will probably be one race on this planet. 

    • godzillabloggs

      Make way for supertrayvon!

    • I’ve heard similar things on black supremacists sites & never considered it to be anything than just a nonsense.

      All of us who are not Negroes derive virtually all of our uniquely human
      genes from a fairly small number of modern humans who left Africa about
      70,000 years ago. Those ancestors looked vastly more Negro than Nordic.

      How do you know ? How can be ascertained how the original homo sapiens in Africa 100,000 yrs ago looked like ?
      I’ve never hear a convincing reply to that questions. Africa, ca. 100,000 yrs ago, had very different climate, environment, humidity etc. and contemporary Africans are not almost exact replica of humans who had lived in Africa, but evolved species (or sub-species, if you wish) of original homo sapiens sapiens (even if we accept “out of Africa” theory without questioning).
      Africans, Bantus, blacks… call it however you wish, are as much products of evolution of original homo sapiens sapiens, as are Whites, “Orientals” etc. They are no genetically “closer” or phenotypically more like the original species.

      Negroes still have considerably more genetic diversity than all the other races combined. This means they can evolve faster.

      Frankly, I don’t know what does it mean. How is this supposed genetic diversity manifested ? Which are its benefits ? Where it lies ?
      I may be insufficiently informed, but I don’t see any corroboration for your

      • JohnEngelman

        The modern humans who left Africa about 70,000 years ago certainly had dark skin to avoid skin cancer. Their skeletons were virtually identical to those of modern humans. The only thing we can be unsure of is whether their hair was kinky, and what their facial features looked like.
        Greater genetic diversity means that there are more possible alleles for every gene location. Greater genetic diversity means greater flexibility to population pressures. For example, dogs have greater genetic diversity than cats. That is why dog breeds are more dissimilar than are cat breeds. 

        • 1. as for skin cancer- don’t make me laugh. I don’t have dark skin nor skin cancer. All we can say that original homo sapiens existed. We don’t know virtually anything about their external physique. The most important thing- Africa before 100,000 years was entirely different re environment & climate, so it’s a grave mistake to equate contemporary Africans with original homo sapiens sapiens. What can be said that they, blacks, evolved physically so that they can adapt to living in a different environment- just like Eskimos or Sumerians.

          2. as for genetic diversity- how is it reflected in phenotype ? Because -dogs species differ visually very much among themselves; on the other hand, blacks are virtually all the same- if we exclude pygmies & Masai. East Asians are phenotypically much more different- I can easily differ Tibetan from Chinese or from Japanese etc. Africans, on the other hand, East-West-North-South: they’re all the same. In Uganda, Mali, South Africa, Congo,  …
          The same stuff.

          • JohnEngelman

            By Randolph E. Schmid
            updated 4/30/2009 2:59:41 PM ET

            WASHINGTON — Africans have more genetic variation than anyone else on Earth, according to a new study that helps narrow the location where humans first evolved, probably near the South Africa-Namibia border… 

            “The human genome describes the complexity of our species,” added Muntaser Ibrahim of the department of molecular biology at the University of Khartoum, Sudan. “Now we have spectacular insight into the history of the African population …

            the oldest history of mankind.”Everybody’s history is part of African history because everybody came out of Africa,” Ibrahim said.

          • This “genetic variation” amounts to- nothing. Leopards run faster, gorillas are stronger,…humans have INTELLECT which Africans have in not enviable quantity & quality.

            What’s the use is this genetic diversity ?

            Better health & immunity ? Blacks die from numerous illnesses and are only better equipped to deal with malaria. Other than that- cardiovascular diseases, obesity, high incidence of cancer, ..perhaps only “good thing” is lack of introspection. Just like animals. They don’t commit suicide because they’re too dumb, unlike Europeans or Asians.

            What else with diversity ? Physical strength- they are weaker (power lifting etc.). Blacks manifest physical superiority only in sprinting and a few other disciplines.

            So, again- what’s the deal with genetic diversity?

            Being too dumb to creatively adapt to environment (see Eskimos). Too dumb to develop mentally & emotionally –

            This hailed genetic diversity is completely useless. Had it been otherwise, Blacks would have emerged victorious in at least one field of human endeavor or potential adaptability.
            And, as we all know- they didn’t and don’t.

          • JohnEngelman

            Bardon Kaldian,
            First of all, I think I have substantiated my assertion that Negroes have more genetic diversity than all of the other races combined. 
            They are well suited to the environment of tropical Africa. Until the development of modern medicine during the last half of the nineteenth century European explorers into the interior of sub Saharan Africa usually died withing a few weeks or months from African diseases that most Negroes survived.
            The reason Negroes have more genetic diversity is because when the races parted, about 70,000 years ago one hundred to several hundred modern humans left Africa.  The rest of the population, which was probably more than 10,000, remained. Together, 10,000 humans have more varied alleles than 300. 
            Caucasian and Asian advantages in average IQ evolved during the past 10,000 years. Compared with the six million years of human evolution, that is a moment. 
            The human species is entering the kind of evolutionary bottleneck the Ashkenazim entered into when the Western Roman Empire collapsed. Superior intelligence is becoming necessary in order to have a progeny. The Ashkenazi Jews only needed one thousand years to develop an average IQ of 112. 
            With their greater genetic diversity blacks will evolve faster than whites. They start the race behind whites. Nevertheless, they will run faster, just as they do in foot races. 
            While this is happening the races will be merging into one. The eventual winner will be a hybrid race descended from the most intelligent members of each of the existing races.
            That is my prediction. Neither of will live long enough to see if I am right. 

          • No, you haven’t proven most of your contentions.

            1. blacks were more adapted to African environment, but not to other climates. Just drop them into Norway out of Congo in 15th century & will see. The fact that Whites had died from tropical diseases en masse ca. 300-500 yrs ago proves nothing. Portuguese died of malaria in 1600s by hundreds of thousands. It’s just a specific set of diseases Blacks have become immune to. On the other hand, they cope poorly with numerous other diseases not present, or not very widespread in Africa.

            2. potential genetic variety means nothing. When will this potential become realized, actualized ? Never. They had enough time, past 5000 years & failed. In next 500 years no one will wait for them, and what more advaced races will do with human genome will alter human races beyond anything Africans possess in dormant state, so to speak.

            3. to think that ca. 10,000 people stayed in Africa & 300 had moved “up north”- this is not corroborated by any reliable study.

          • 1911ThePunisher45

            Whats the matter John? No more rebutles? Give up? Yeah, I’d give up too if I was getting intellectually raped, while posting links to MSNBC.

          • JohnEngelman

            The oldest pre human fossils have been found in and near Ethiopia. Randolph Schmid probably means that modern humans first evolved “near 
            the South Africa-Namibia border.” 
            The Bushmen live there now.   DNA evidence indicates that they are the oldest human race. It is reasonable to assume that when our ancestors left Africa about 70,000 years ago they looked very similar to the Bushmen.

            I can guarantee you they did not have blond hair, blue eyes, and high cheek bones.

          • The Bushmen live there now.   DNA evidence indicates that they are the
            oldest human race. It is reasonable to assume that when our ancestors
            left Africa about 70,000 years ago they looked very similar to the

            This is a joke, isn’t it ? Since, there is no way homo sapiens sapiens, who appeared in Europe & Near East ca. 50,000 (or 40,000 yrs) ago, have had anything in common with Bushmen.

            Bushmen are just a blind alley of human evolution, not some human matrix out of which the rest of us evolved.

            Quack science, pure speculations …

        • The ancestors of non-African races and of Africans themselves certainly did not have dark skin, or the ability to blush would have evolved after the migration out of Africa.

          And the phenetic diversity of dogs relative to that of cats cannot be attributed simply to genetic diversity, as cats have never been exposed to the widely different kinds and levels of natural and artificial selection that produced the wide differences between canine landraces and breeds. There’s no reason why domestic cats would have the phenetic diversity of domestic dogs given the more limited nature of their association with man.

          • The original humans had light skin. Blacks have white skin on the bottom of their feet and the palms of their hands.

          • JohnEngelman

            I doubt a single reputable anthropologist would agree with you. The original humans developed and evolved in Africa. It is unknown when they lost their covering of fur. When they did they needed dark skin to ward off skin cancer. 
            The genetic determinants of skin color are skin cancer and rickets. A dark skinned people moving north would get rickets from lack of vitamin D, so the light skinned individuals would be more likely to survive and reproduce. This is why Scandinavian people have lighter skin than Caucasians living in southern Europe. 
            A light skinned people moving south would get skin cancer, so the darker skinned individuals would survive and reproduce. That is what happened to the American Indians. 

    • “Those ancestors looked vastly more Negro than Nordic. ”

      There is no reason to believe this at all. Congoids are a very recently evolved and specialised group.

      “This is because those in Africa had much more genetic diversity than those out of Africa.”

      No, that is the result of backmigrations.

    • HamletsGhost

      Where is the evidence for any of your assertions? If Negroes had or have more genetic diversity, they would have evolved further. Negroes have lived in the Western hemisphere for 500 years, and there is little indication that they’ve evolved at all. Go to Port-au-Prince and tell me how different it is from Lagos.
      One race in a few thousand years? Not to judge by history. India has been a melting pot of many different races for thousands of years, and the result is not one blended “super-race”, but a tangle of mutually antagonistic tribes, sects, and castes.

      • JohnEngelman

        This website documents my assertion of greater genetic diversity for Negroes.
        Greater genetic diversity makes a breeding population more flexible to environmental pressures. It does not lead to greater intelligence unless more intelligent members are more prolific than less intelligent members. 

        • HamletsGhost

          The only thing about that article that made an impression of me was how badly written it was.

          “The study also found that about 71 percent of African-Americans can trace their ancestry to western African origins. They also have between 13 percent and 15 percent European ancestry and a smaller amount of other African origins.”

          Actually 100 percent of African-Americans, by definition, trace their ancestry to Africa. What I’m sure the writer meant to say was that the gene pool of African-American is 71% African, 13-15% European, with others comprising the difference.

          The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the recipe. One can claim all sorts of scientific findings for Negroes, but what counts is what occurs in the real world. 

          Whites are far more different in their individual phenotypes (i.e. some are blond, some brunette, some red-haired) than blacks. This is no doubt due to the much greater variety of hostile environments that whites had to adapt to, such as the cold winters of Northern Eurasia. Comparatively, Negroes lived in an equatorial climate with little variation.

          One should be very cautious in believing anything from the mainstream media regarding human evolution. I noticed at a young age how forced the “out-of-Africa” seemed to be. It was only later I learned how the science had been hijacked by Franz Boas and his intellectual hatchlings since the 1920s.

          • JohnEngelman

            The reason many American Renaissance posters dislike the out of Africa theory of human origins is because it claims that their ancestors 70,000 years ago looked very similar to the way Negroes look today. 

          • HamletsGhost

            It has nothing to do with like or dislike. What matters is what is true, and truth is something we rarely get from the mainstream media.
            The origins of the world’s races is very much an open question. I don’t know if the “out-of-Africa” theory is true or not, but the fact that it is promoted so insistently by the usual suspects is reason enough to suspect it.

            If this theory is correct, so what? Millions of years ago, our ancestors were fish. Does that mean we should give voting rights to fish? 

          • I don’t dislike this speculation, but “interpretations” which are ludicrous, that people living in an environment more similar to contemporary Austria than to Congo had been physically closer to Congolese than to Austrians. 

      • JohnEngelman

        Because I am a history buff, and a natural history buff it is easy for me to think in terms of hundreds of years, thousands of years, and millions of years.
        I predict that in the coming centuries blacks will reduce the IQ gap with whites and Asians, not because of policies like No Child Left Behind, but because more intelligent blacks will have more children who survive and reproduce.
        The dysgenics caused by the welfare system is a temporary anomaly, that is already coming to an end. 
        Within several thousand years there will be one race on this planet as a result of miscegenation. This race will have a higher average intelligence than any of the existing races. 

        • HamletsGhost

          Are the current inhabitants of India of higher average intelligence than the original Aryan invaders?

          • JohnEngelman

            To find out, one would need to go back in time and give those Aryan invaders IQ tests. Indian immigrants to the United States usually become prosperous after one or two generations. 

          • HamletsGhost

            No need for a time machine. Just look at India today, all of it, not just a self-selected sub-set of professional-level immigrants. 

            My original point remains: India has been a melting pot on high boil for most of its 4000 year history, and has yet to turn into a unitary racial entity. Its people are sharply divided into numerous mutually antagonistic tribes and castes. 

            If the more intelligent Indians haven’t propagated their high-IQ genes throughout the population by now, when do you expect them to do so? The lack of any sort of welfare state in India doesn’t seem to help.

          • You claim to be a history buff, but- nothing personal- I doubt you have more inquisitive historical consciousness (Vico, Herder, Hegel, Spengler, Toynbee, Lewis Mumford, ..). The argument with India is correct. Castes (in Sanskrit “varna”, color, hence racial segregation) have produced innumerable hues of colored peoples, with lightest Brahmins- most likely priests of conquering Indo-Aryans, until very dark southerners (Tamil, Telugu etc.). Although Tamils have done much in some areas of culture, most Indian intelligentsiais still Indo-Aryan, located in North- West (Punjab, Kashmir,..) and North-East (Bengal etc.).

            More recent example is Brazil, where some 15+% marriages are mixed. And Brazil shows even more trends of diversifying population re phenotype & genotype.

            So, the tale about “one race/color” is just a projection.

      • The__Bobster

        He’s watching the pseudo-scientific PC crap on PBS again.

  • Robert Binion

    “These brutes were made for walkin’.”

    If vast expanses of desert and ice were nigh impassable to primitives without maritime skill, and if the Sahara could restrain African exuberance, what geographical barrier kept Neanderthal and Denisovans in splendid segregation ?  Were their offspring fertile?  My highest reference is Mt. Le Conte, but the Himalayas tower over it.  With more investigation of “clockwork” genes, scientists soon will certify that intuitive knowledge of human populations possessed by the average sharecropper in 1920 Arkansas.

  • Church_of_Jed

    Do the J-words teach their children that they descend from African apes? I’m not kidding. Do they really teach monkey evolution to these academic superlatives?

    • 1911ThePunisher45
      • 1911ThePunisher45

        Blacks steal the truth.

        Arkaim  was Aryan, according to the University of Moscow, Arkaim was Bantu according to Afrocentrists.

      • godzillabloggs

        The BBC has touched on this subject, very gingerly, in a programme featuring an orthodox archaeologist.   I think that the original broadcast was a bit longer than this clip.  The concluding remarks by  a Professor   Lincoln are amusing.  As if much of history is not made to serve political ends.

        • 1911ThePunisher45

          It’s funny to me the powers to be always praise ancient discoveries of non-whites. Yet when a university proffesor states the Aryans supposedly inveted everything all the way down to metalurgy that information gets destroyed to dismissed as radical racist lunacy.

          • godzillabloggs

            It’s all part of our political education.   In Orwell’s words “He who controls the past, controls the present…….”

  • potato78

    As White Races, some of them came from Africa and some of them were originated from Far East Asia based on Scientific Data.

  • Urantia is occult claptrap, just like other channellings. Even the best & most readable of them, like Max Heindel’s “Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception”, or theosophical writings of C.W. Leadbeater & Steiner’s anthroposophy are hopelessly antiquated and, well, weird.

  • So are East Asians more Neanderthal, not the Europeans?

    This is a bit of a disappointment, it was always good to imagine the Euros as the bearers of ancient Neanderthal advantages.

    “Native Americans and people in East Asia have more Neanderthal DNA than
    do people whose ancestors are from Europe, where most Neanderthals lived”

    “About 3% to 5% of the DNA in people native to Papua New Guinea,
    Australia, the Philippines and other islands nearby came from
    Denisovans, the study found,”

  • Mea culpa, I confess I don’t know much about details of genetics- call it physicist’s arrogance. For us, biology people were inferior stock (no math, no serious quantitative theory, it took Schroedinger to develop sensible theories of life etc.). Just, when I read books on genetics & evolution, I have an indelible impression of true discoveries combined with laughable speculations. For instance:

    * human mind (language, religion, language, script, art, science,..) somehow “developed”. Why ? How ? There was absolutely no need for overabundance of emotions & intellect. No environment or population pressure or anything can explain suicide due to a sense of meaninglessness of life, arts, invention, self-consciousness, introspection going back and forth in time etc. Sagan and others have tried to explain impossible richness of human psyche in terms of evolution- and failed miserably.

    * pure speculation like- Whites are lactose tolerant as grown-ups due to exploitation of domesticated animals (milks from cows etc.). Well, East Asians had also all these animals- cows, pigs, goats,…- but, they’re lactose intolerant. So much for “explanation”. Blacks have dark skin because of sun (tropics theme). OK, but Polynesians and numerous other “light dark”- but non-Black- peoples live in the tropics without the huge amount of melanin.

    I mean- this is science, but marred by both PC muzzle and frequently childish “explanations”.

  • Just yesterday I blogged on the subject of Out of Africa and its coverage in the media.

  • It is very questionable whether Homo sapiens did evolve in Africa now, and in any case the MRCA of all modern sapiens races must have been light skinned enough to blush because the darkest skinned races have the physiology that evolved to do so, it just doesn’t work because their pigmentation is too dark.

    In itself the last point might not refute an African origin, but I’m sick of the implication that African equals Congoid or black anyway.

  • It isn’t that simple.

    Kabwe demonstrates the presence of the heidelbergensis-neanderthalensis line of hominins in Africa at an age now redated younger than Omo.

    The hominins like Skhul, Qafzeh, Herto and Omo are not fully modern sapiens according to the strict phenetic criteria of Schwartz and Tattersall. Even the later Fish Hoek, Boskop etc from the extreme south of subsaharan Africa are of this grade.

  • KenelmDigby

    The point is that subsaharan blacks are perfectly adapted to *their* environment ie a land of no winter, of low hanging fruit, abundant game and no need to build shelters, make clothes or shoes etc. If anestral Europeans – who evolved during ice ages – neglected these things they surely would have died.
     Blacks seem to have evolved, in the main, to counter to such vicious tropical diseases as malaria etc, and in general their tendency is to to breed fast and die fast – their’s was an elemental struggle against the ‘nastiness’ of nature and it seems to have bred in them a certain viciousness, as if bullying and breeding ability were selected for.
      European, on the other hand, had to make things in order to survive. They had to weave, they had to make shoes, they had to build, they had to farm, they had to be provident, they had to cooperate.

    • I know all that, but you’re talking to a wrong person. All I’m saying is:

      1. we don’t know how early homo sapiens sapiens looked like
      2. Blacks evolved just like other races
      3. their evolution was a response to changes in environment
      4. their supposed superior genetic variety has not manifested in any significant element of life- health, physical prowess, immunity, longevity, lower rates of infant mortality, mental agility, inventiveness, organizational ability, …
      So, this supposed trait is even more insignificant than so called junk DNA.

  • That was the argument of a friend of mine (now in Australia). He said, essentially: OK, we evolved from apes. Yet- we’re now humans, and you’re still apes (apes is, you get it, metaphorical).

  • BaronBaal

    How can they know the skin colour of these people? Sounds to me there’s a lot of guesswork going on here…

  • Oh yeah. “Objective Facts” that still say Whites and Blacks are related- that’s Bullshevism, frankly. What of Avdeyev’s book, Raciology- mentioned here, first? It clearly pointed out that Whites did NOT come ‘out of Africa,’ and, of course, there is the science of Gerald Schroeder’s book, ‘The Science of God’ that clearly shows Adam to be a race that is the pinnacle of Evolution. I argue that pinnacle is White Man, he argues it is the Jews. But this Denisovan stuff? Meh. They’re extinct, aren’t they? Not too great at ‘survival of the fittest,’ if you ask me….

  • Church_of_Jed

    Then they don’t believe they are related to n’groes, which makes them racists.