Evolution??
- Thread starter Stormy
- Start date
To say that new evidence repeatedly confirms evolution is to not understand the new evidence. The new evidence actually proves that Darwinian Evolutionary Theory cannot possibly be the empirical description of all life on this planet.
Recently, Neil Risch, geneticist, and a professor at Stanford University, published an article based on research from the Human Genome Project that proves that people did not evolve from a single ancester or from a single continent, both of which are integral to the evolution theory. His research shows that loci clusters of genes for race prove that each race of human, of which there are several thousand, on the planet are genetically different from each other. A review of his research is here;
[ Edited a news link that wouldn't work.]
And his published paper is here;
http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
For his published paper you will have to register at the Genome Biology site, which only takes a minute, and search for it, which also only takes a minute.
In the published paper, Mr. Risch states,
-- "Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry--namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American." --Neil Risch
This statement, and the science behind it, proves that human races are genetically different and that black people cannot turn into white people and white people cannot turn into red people because, while most of the genes they share are virtually identical, the most important one that delineates the different races is totally different.
The adherents of evolutionary theory always seem to confuse evolutionary theory with natural selection, and they use both descriptive term interchangeably. In support of their theory they will come up with the most unrealistic scenarios and say that they have evidence that supports their theory when in fact the evidence refutes their theory, such as this quote;
--"Hispanics, who represent a recently admixed group between Native Americans, Caucasian and African, did not form a distinct subgroup, but clustered variously with the other groups." --Neil Risch
What world renowned geneticists are trying to tell us here is that black people emigrated out of Africa and moved north and changed into white people and then the white people moved west and changed into red people and that every time they did one of these emigrations they developed a totally new gene that no other human race had ever possessed before the emigration. Then, for reason's they do not explain, all three of those race, after they were fully changed from black to white and then to red, all got together in southern europe and changed into Hispanic people. Anyone in science knows that such rapid race change is clearly impossible, but the evolutionists stick to the story because without their fanciful manipulations and mis-interpretations of data,---they have no theory at all.
Clearly, the evolutionists think that the majority of people are stupid or gullible enough to fall for that fairy tale, or they wouldn't present it. Their hostility towards creationism causes them to inveigle against it instead of presenting their evidence in an open and honest fashion, as science should be conducted.
Recently, Neil Risch, geneticist, and a professor at Stanford University, published an article based on research from the Human Genome Project that proves that people did not evolve from a single ancester or from a single continent, both of which are integral to the evolution theory. His research shows that loci clusters of genes for race prove that each race of human, of which there are several thousand, on the planet are genetically different from each other. A review of his research is here;
[ Edited a news link that wouldn't work.]
And his published paper is here;
http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
For his published paper you will have to register at the Genome Biology site, which only takes a minute, and search for it, which also only takes a minute.
In the published paper, Mr. Risch states,
-- "Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry--namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American." --Neil Risch
This statement, and the science behind it, proves that human races are genetically different and that black people cannot turn into white people and white people cannot turn into red people because, while most of the genes they share are virtually identical, the most important one that delineates the different races is totally different.
The adherents of evolutionary theory always seem to confuse evolutionary theory with natural selection, and they use both descriptive term interchangeably. In support of their theory they will come up with the most unrealistic scenarios and say that they have evidence that supports their theory when in fact the evidence refutes their theory, such as this quote;
--"Hispanics, who represent a recently admixed group between Native Americans, Caucasian and African, did not form a distinct subgroup, but clustered variously with the other groups." --Neil Risch
What world renowned geneticists are trying to tell us here is that black people emigrated out of Africa and moved north and changed into white people and then the white people moved west and changed into red people and that every time they did one of these emigrations they developed a totally new gene that no other human race had ever possessed before the emigration. Then, for reason's they do not explain, all three of those race, after they were fully changed from black to white and then to red, all got together in southern europe and changed into Hispanic people. Anyone in science knows that such rapid race change is clearly impossible, but the evolutionists stick to the story because without their fanciful manipulations and mis-interpretations of data,---they have no theory at all.
Clearly, the evolutionists think that the majority of people are stupid or gullible enough to fall for that fairy tale, or they wouldn't present it. Their hostility towards creationism causes them to inveigle against it instead of presenting their evidence in an open and honest fashion, as science should be conducted.
Upvote
0
john macneil, just what do you actually know about genetics, because judging from your posts, it ain't much.
you haven't even mentioned a time frame - perhaps its because you believe the world is 6000 years old. I'd love to see you support your claim that "anyone in science knows its impossible"
there can be no denying that the weight of incoming evidence is supporting evolution - if you'd read any of the major science journals over the last couple of years you'd know that
you haven't even mentioned a time frame - perhaps its because you believe the world is 6000 years old. I'd love to see you support your claim that "anyone in science knows its impossible"
there can be no denying that the weight of incoming evidence is supporting evolution - if you'd read any of the major science journals over the last couple of years you'd know that
Upvote
0
I am confused as to how any of that is an argument against evolution (assuming that was your intent, which isn't that clear, either).
Upvote
0
The voice of moderation and reason. Well put. What many will fail to understand that this is equally the case with all scientific theories that are universally accepted (even by the lay public to the extent that they understand them), and usually without so much evidence behind them as evolution.
You won't likely get quoted by creationists on this statement - except where they are arguing against their sacred strawman, "infallible science".
Upvote
0
MSBS
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2002
- 1,860
- 103
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
John MacNeil,
Did you read the Genome Biology article? I suggest you peruse the section titled "Human Evolution" and check out the picture in figure 1 titled "The evolutionary tree of human races." You seemed to have missed to point by quite a very very very long way.
Did you read the Genome Biology article? I suggest you peruse the section titled "Human Evolution" and check out the picture in figure 1 titled "The evolutionary tree of human races." You seemed to have missed to point by quite a very very very long way.
Upvote
0
The evolutionists always display charts they have drawn in lieu of presenting evidence that could prove their theory. They seem to feel that by putting simplistic diagrams on paper and saying those diagram prove their evolutionary theory is the same as presenting real evidence. Whenever they are challenged about the scientific relevance of their diagrams and their made up connections which are the heart of their theory, they always attack the individual who dares to challenge their Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Always. They don't examine the evidence or the scientific view for the simple reason that they know their theory is untenable from a scientific perspective.
Neil Risch is a world renowned geneticist and he is a professor at a world renowned university, Stanford. He is at the "cutting edge" of genetic science with his work on the Human Genome Project. The results that he and his team published prove unequivocally that different races have loci clusters of genes that are inherant to individual races and that no intermediate evolutionary genes exist that could be construed as an evolutionary step between the races. The science that the geneticists produced is above reproach. However, if they say that they still believe in Darwinian Theory of Evolution after producing such evidence, then that is a personal viewpoint and is not science. They merely state that they believe in Darwinian theory because that is the official viewpoint of corporate/science and they must pay homage to it if they wish to practice science at an establishment university.
Evidence for our type of human exists from a maximum of 30,000 year ago. Therefore the evolutionists theorize that black people moved north out of Africa and turned white and then the white ones moved west to the Americas and turned red and then they all emigrated to Southern Europe and turned Hispanic. This is describing evolutionary change at an incredible rate, considering all their other theories for biologic change takes tens of million of year. And that is only describing four races out of the approximately seven thousand on the planet. How they fit the other seven thousand races in their race change scenario is anybody's guess, since they only ever attack the questioner when they are confronted with the inconsistencies and outright absurdities of their theory.
Natural selection among individual species is a proven scientific theory. We see evidence of it in the breeding of roses and horses and numerous other plants and animals. But there is no evidence that all life on the planet derived from a single source or a single time or even from several different time periods, if the cataclysmic extinctions are valid. The most apparent difference, and proof against evolutionary theory, is in humans, whose species diversity cannot be explained by modern science.
Neil Risch is a world renowned geneticist and he is a professor at a world renowned university, Stanford. He is at the "cutting edge" of genetic science with his work on the Human Genome Project. The results that he and his team published prove unequivocally that different races have loci clusters of genes that are inherant to individual races and that no intermediate evolutionary genes exist that could be construed as an evolutionary step between the races. The science that the geneticists produced is above reproach. However, if they say that they still believe in Darwinian Theory of Evolution after producing such evidence, then that is a personal viewpoint and is not science. They merely state that they believe in Darwinian theory because that is the official viewpoint of corporate/science and they must pay homage to it if they wish to practice science at an establishment university.
Evidence for our type of human exists from a maximum of 30,000 year ago. Therefore the evolutionists theorize that black people moved north out of Africa and turned white and then the white ones moved west to the Americas and turned red and then they all emigrated to Southern Europe and turned Hispanic. This is describing evolutionary change at an incredible rate, considering all their other theories for biologic change takes tens of million of year. And that is only describing four races out of the approximately seven thousand on the planet. How they fit the other seven thousand races in their race change scenario is anybody's guess, since they only ever attack the questioner when they are confronted with the inconsistencies and outright absurdities of their theory.
Natural selection among individual species is a proven scientific theory. We see evidence of it in the breeding of roses and horses and numerous other plants and animals. But there is no evidence that all life on the planet derived from a single source or a single time or even from several different time periods, if the cataclysmic extinctions are valid. The most apparent difference, and proof against evolutionary theory, is in humans, whose species diversity cannot be explained by modern science.
Upvote
0
you're not a scientist are you, have you ever actually done any science? Do you know any scientists? I doubt it very much based on what you've said so far. Baseless rhetoric is no substitute for an argument
whats incredible about it again? The genetic differences between human subpopulations aren't very large at all. Biological change happens all the time, constantly. It takes tens of millions of years for large changes - the divergence of subpopulations of humans isn't a large change. It isn't a problem for evolutionary theory at all, I don't know why you think it is, perhaps it stems from a poor understanding of genetics.
Upvote
0
Concerning the paper by Neil Risch, did you read it?
From the paper in question --
"Probably the best way to examine the issue of genetic subgrouping is through the lens of human evolution. If the human population mated at random, there would be no issue of genetic subgrouping because the chance of any individual carrying a specific gene variant would be evenly distributed around the world. For a variety of reasons, however, including geography, sociology and culture, humans have not and do not currently mate randomly, either on a global level or within countries such as the US. A clearer picture of human evolution has emerged from numerous studies over the past decade using a variety of genetic markers and involving indigenous populations from around the world. In summary, populations outside Africa derive from one or more migration events out of Africa within the last 100,000 years [5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. The greatest genetic variation occurs within Africans, with variation outside Africa representing either a subset of African diversity or newly arisen variants. Genetic differentiation between individuals depends on the degree and duration of separation of their ancestors. Geographic isolation and in-breeding (endogamy) due to social and/or cultural forces over extended time periods create and enhance genetic differentiation, while migration and inter-mating reduce it."
" . . For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level."
---------------------------------------
Your source seems to be misrepresenting the research. This does not conflict with evolutionary theory and his research only strengthens the predictive power of the theory.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
AgnusDei
Deh solicitor stalker!
*Deane looks at everyone in surprise that they have not come to a standing point yet*
I loathe pride and I strive to be humble through prayer. When I see someone that is clinging to a lie, I see the very thing that got Satan kicked out of Heaven: pride.
*Roars* Are you afraid to use the two-edged sword? You will debate, but where is God's Word in all of this?
"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night: and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."
I recently got a new issue of Clubhouse today. In it, I found this:
"For years some doubters of the Bible have said it can't be trusted because it contains inaccuracies. One example, they said, is the Old Testament story of King Hezekiah having a tunnel built under Jerusalem to bring water into the city. In 1838, an American archaeologist named Edward Robinson explored this tunnel, which connected the Spring of Gihon to the Pool of Siloam inside the old city. He discovered the pick marks in the stone ran in opposite directions at either end. Then in 1880 an Arab boy wading in the pool went deep into the passage with a light. On the wall, he found something archeaologists had missed...an inscription in ancient Hebrew explaining how the tunnel had been made. It said the diggers worked with picks from opposite ends until they met in the middle...a distance of 1,200 cubits. That's approximately 1,800 feet. What an incredible feat! And it happened just as the Bible recorded (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30). More proof the Bible makes no mistakes!" 
I loathe pride and I strive to be humble through prayer. When I see someone that is clinging to a lie, I see the very thing that got Satan kicked out of Heaven: pride.
*Roars* Are you afraid to use the two-edged sword? You will debate, but where is God's Word in all of this?
"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night: and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."
I recently got a new issue of Clubhouse today. In it, I found this:
"For years some doubters of the Bible have said it can't be trusted because it contains inaccuracies. One example, they said, is the Old Testament story of King Hezekiah having a tunnel built under Jerusalem to bring water into the city. In 1838, an American archaeologist named Edward Robinson explored this tunnel, which connected the Spring of Gihon to the Pool of Siloam inside the old city. He discovered the pick marks in the stone ran in opposite directions at either end. Then in 1880 an Arab boy wading in the pool went deep into the passage with a light. On the wall, he found something archeaologists had missed...an inscription in ancient Hebrew explaining how the tunnel had been made. It said the diggers worked with picks from opposite ends until they met in the middle...a distance of 1,200 cubits. That's approximately 1,800 feet. What an incredible feat! And it happened just as the Bible recorded (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30). More proof the Bible makes no mistakes!"
Upvote
0
Not everyone believes in God or that the Bible is God's word.
Also, science cannot deal with issues of God or other supernatural force affecting our natural world (not that science tries to disprove God; rather, God is beyond science).
Upvote
0
If God created science so that we could learn about Him, then science has told us that He has used evolution to shape the diversity of life on this planet.
Upvote
0
MSBS
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2002
- 1,860
- 103
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
John MacNeil,
It has become painfully obvious that you have not actually read Dr. Risch's paper that you are trying to use as evidence for your point. The point of the paper is to show that races can be distinguished genetically, not that they did not have common anscestors. Risch himself says they do and this is published in the paper that you are using as evidence! THE AUTHORITY YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO USE TO BACK UP YOUR POINT DISAGREES WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, AS WRITTEN IN THE PAPER THAT *YOU* LINKED TO! Your reading of it is entirely wrong. You have missed the point. Hard wishing or clapping your ruby red slippers together isn't going to change that. If you disagree with evolution, fine! Just don't go saying that this or that scientist said something that they did not say. This is known as bearing flase witness.
some advice, taken from http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The proponents of evolutionary theory, as with all proponents of lost causes, are fanatic about defending their theory vociferously but when it comes to defending it scientifically they are as quiet as the proverbial mouse. They make pontifical statements such as this;
-- "Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor?" --Stephen Jay Gould
This simplistic statement displays a belief that supercedes science and empirical methodology with a foregone conclusion that is not warranted by the known evidence. The evolutionists try to portray their theory as being science based when the science shows just the opposite. They freely state their foregone conclusion instead of letting the science be interpreted as it really is, such as this statement shows;
-- "We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of geneology."--Stephen Jay Gould
Both of those statement of the late Stephen Jay Gould, who is a leading proponent of evolutionary theory, can be found at this web site;
www.stephenjaygould.org/
The proponents of evolutionary theory ignore all scientific evidence that contradicts their theory and claim much evidence supports their theory when in fact it does not. The scientific evidence proves that there is, and was, a multitude of species and that natural selection improves on species generationally, but it also proves that Darwinian Theory of Evolution is not viable. The most abundant evidence for that disconnect from Darwinian Theory is ourselves, the human residents of this planet, and our fossil record. The earliest known human skeletal remains are carbon 14 dated to 30,000 year ago and beyond that humans didn't reside on this planet. The evolutionists always try to link us with the primate hominids Neanderthal and Skhul V, but the species are not anything alike as an examination of the skulls will quickly prove to anyone. This is freely admitted by the Smithsonian Institution, as is evidenced by this statement;
-- "The origins of modern Homo Sapians is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed."-- The Smithsonian Instituion
This statement can be found at their Encyclopedia Smithsonian website in the Human Evolution section. Photographic evidence of Neanderthals, Skhul V and modern humans can also be found there, in the same chart, for comparison purposes.
-- "Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor?" --Stephen Jay Gould
This simplistic statement displays a belief that supercedes science and empirical methodology with a foregone conclusion that is not warranted by the known evidence. The evolutionists try to portray their theory as being science based when the science shows just the opposite. They freely state their foregone conclusion instead of letting the science be interpreted as it really is, such as this statement shows;
-- "We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of geneology."--Stephen Jay Gould
Both of those statement of the late Stephen Jay Gould, who is a leading proponent of evolutionary theory, can be found at this web site;
www.stephenjaygould.org/
The proponents of evolutionary theory ignore all scientific evidence that contradicts their theory and claim much evidence supports their theory when in fact it does not. The scientific evidence proves that there is, and was, a multitude of species and that natural selection improves on species generationally, but it also proves that Darwinian Theory of Evolution is not viable. The most abundant evidence for that disconnect from Darwinian Theory is ourselves, the human residents of this planet, and our fossil record. The earliest known human skeletal remains are carbon 14 dated to 30,000 year ago and beyond that humans didn't reside on this planet. The evolutionists always try to link us with the primate hominids Neanderthal and Skhul V, but the species are not anything alike as an examination of the skulls will quickly prove to anyone. This is freely admitted by the Smithsonian Institution, as is evidenced by this statement;
-- "The origins of modern Homo Sapians is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed."-- The Smithsonian Instituion
This statement can be found at their Encyclopedia Smithsonian website in the Human Evolution section. Photographic evidence of Neanderthals, Skhul V and modern humans can also be found there, in the same chart, for comparison purposes.
Upvote
0
And opponents of evolutionary theory, as with all opponents of that which they are woefully ignorant, are fanatic about attacking the theory vociferously with pointless rhetoric, quote-mining, and poor science.
Weee.
Upvote
0
please read a recent issue of nature or science, to avoid embarrasing yourself further
this is just empty rhetoric, and considering that you claim allelic variation in subpopulations of humans is evidence against evolution, i'm not inclined to believe you.
99 percent of biologists come to a totally different conclusion. I myself came to a totally different conclusion - not only is it viable, its far and away the best explanation we have
Upvote
0
Please do not bring PROFESSOR GOULD into this argue ment until you have read his book "structure of evolutionary theory" and write acomplete rebuttal.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Retoric is easy isn't it John. Have you read the paper by Neil Risch yet? Any comments on it related to the discussion?
------------------------------------------
The proponents of YEC theory, as with all proponents of lost causes, are fanatic about defending their theory vociferously but when it comes to defending it scientifically they are as quiet as the proverbial mouse. They make pontifical statements such as this;
-- "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." --Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith
This simplistic statement displays a belief that supercedes science and empirical methodology with a foregone conclusion that is not warranted by the known evidence. The creationists try to portray their theory as being science based when the science shows just the opposite. They freely state their foregone conclusion instead of letting the science be interpreted as it really is, such as this statement shows;
-- "The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth, and the universe.."--Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith
Both of those statements of the AIG, who is a leading proponent of Creation theory, can be found at this web site;
www.answersingenesis.org/
The proponents of creation theory ignore all scientific evidence that contradicts their theory and claim much evidence supports their theory when in fact it does not. The scientific evidence proves that there is, and was, a multitude of species and that natural selection improves on species generationally, and it also proves that young earth creation theory is not viable. The most abundant evidence for that disconnect from
Young Earth Creation Theory is ourselves, the human residents of this planet, and our fossil record. Early hominid fossils span a time period going back as far as a million years and before that, there is a gradual transition shown from earlier primates. This is freely admitted by the Smithsonian Institution, as is evidenced by this statement;
-- "Virtually every human society shares a fascination with our deep past. For many of us, the study of human origins and evolution from our ape-like ancestors (also called Paleoanthropology) is one of the most exciting scientific fields because it investigates the origin, over millions of years, of the universal and defining traits that make our species what it is. It is the science that shines light on the question, "What does it mean to be human?"
-- The Smithsonian Instituion
This statement can be found at their Encyclopedia Smithsonian website in the Human Evolution section. Photographic evidence of Neanderthals, Skhul V and modern humans can also be found there, in the same chart, for comparison purposes.
------------------------------------------
The proponents of YEC theory, as with all proponents of lost causes, are fanatic about defending their theory vociferously but when it comes to defending it scientifically they are as quiet as the proverbial mouse. They make pontifical statements such as this;
-- "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." --Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith
This simplistic statement displays a belief that supercedes science and empirical methodology with a foregone conclusion that is not warranted by the known evidence. The creationists try to portray their theory as being science based when the science shows just the opposite. They freely state their foregone conclusion instead of letting the science be interpreted as it really is, such as this statement shows;
-- "The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth, and the universe.."--Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith
Both of those statements of the AIG, who is a leading proponent of Creation theory, can be found at this web site;
www.answersingenesis.org/
The proponents of creation theory ignore all scientific evidence that contradicts their theory and claim much evidence supports their theory when in fact it does not. The scientific evidence proves that there is, and was, a multitude of species and that natural selection improves on species generationally, and it also proves that young earth creation theory is not viable. The most abundant evidence for that disconnect from
Young Earth Creation Theory is ourselves, the human residents of this planet, and our fossil record. Early hominid fossils span a time period going back as far as a million years and before that, there is a gradual transition shown from earlier primates. This is freely admitted by the Smithsonian Institution, as is evidenced by this statement;
-- "Virtually every human society shares a fascination with our deep past. For many of us, the study of human origins and evolution from our ape-like ancestors (also called Paleoanthropology) is one of the most exciting scientific fields because it investigates the origin, over millions of years, of the universal and defining traits that make our species what it is. It is the science that shines light on the question, "What does it mean to be human?"
-- The Smithsonian Instituion
This statement can be found at their Encyclopedia Smithsonian website in the Human Evolution section. Photographic evidence of Neanderthals, Skhul V and modern humans can also be found there, in the same chart, for comparison purposes.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
