Percentages whether 1%-4% (it's disputed, your article is one among a sea of them, some with more recent dates / better equipment / better methods) that state anywhere from 1-6% genetic difference depending on what you compare etc. As well, the genetic difference between humans/neanderthals isn't absolutely known. The point I was trying to make still stands - small genetic differences can mean dramatic physiological differences, we weren't the same species as Neanderthals, and having 1-4% of neanderthals still in us (as an article suggests it, even though you can always find one that says 10-20% to support your side of the argument) doesn't mean we are Neanderthals.
This is really getting nowhere. I mean, I keep on debunking your nonsensical claims, yet you still desperately try to equivocate and circumvent my points without putting forward any valid points of your own.
Take the 1st claim quoted above:- I pointed out that we already have 20% of the Neanderthal genome within us. The point being that if Neanderthals could interbreed with us then the differences between Neanderthals and humans must be negligible or they would not have been able to interbreed - plus the ability to interbreed means that Neanderthals are not much different from modern humans in terms of genetic distance than the various current human ethnic groups are from each other. I have also shown that recent, more scientifically advanced studies concerning supposed "junk DNA" among other things have shown that the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is much larger than the absurd, outdated <1% figure you gave, namely a 4 to 6 % difference. Which is pretty large compared to the pathetic 0.12% difference between Neanderthals and humans.
At any rate, my point still stands:- current scientific research makes it clear Neanderthals did not grow any fur and had other methods re cold-adaptation such as shorter limbs etc. etc.
Neanderthals did have fur according to current scientific thought, your article is one among a sea of them.
The trouble is that current scientific thought is that Neanderthals did not have fur, your notions are hopessly outdated. It is true that, decades ago, the notion of Neanderthals being furry apelike monsters was prevalent, but, in recent years, this has all changed with Neanderthals now being presented as furless humans, now that it is known that fur would have been a physiological problem for them(as I explained previously) and now that Neanderthals have been shown to have been at least as intelligent as early humans :-
http://s.ngm.com/2008/10/neanderthals/img/neanderthal-615.jpghttp://hugequestions.com/Eric/Neanderthals/Neanderthal-2.jpg If you actually want to contribute something, then show a single reason we would evolve subcutaneous fat while not being semiaquatic animals. In case you're confused, subcutaneous fat doesn't just mean "lots of fat", it means our fat is under our skin directly, like a dolphins, rather than around our organs, like true land based animals.
OK here goes:- pigs have subcutaneous fat but are not known to be semiaquatic animals, let alone aquatic ones.
Also:-
http://www.humansexualevolution.com/blog/?p=276Furthermore, I was not unclear about Neanderthals extinction vs. lifespan, your ignorant assumption did all of the muddying of the water for you.
No, you just, as usual, explained things so badly that you effectively were writing about something quite different.
Again, your assumption is that Yaghans used fires for "extra comfort and that's all". You don't know this, you weren't there, yet you give facts as if you were, this is the foundation of all your problems leading to a view of reality which is based on imagined ideas assumed to be facts without ever having given a logical deduction to the idea.
Unlike you, I simply used logic and common sense to make my point. If the Yaghans had to depend on fires ALL the time to survive, then they would have swiftly died out long before because , in times of scarcity, there might not be enough wood for a fire or the current weather(eg:- flooding) might prevent a fire from being lit - therefore, since the Yaghans must at some stages have been without access to fires, they must have been able to adapt to their environment. Now, unlike you, I do not assume some form of so-called "perfect" adaptation as plenty of cold-adapted wild animals do not even have such an ability, I just mean that the Yaghans obviously could survive without fire, they just used fire in order to warm themselves up more, that's all.
There's no misunderstanding, there are of course some humans Yaghan derivatives, which are better adapted to cold climates, but there are no humans which are better adapted to cold climates than warm climates (speaking of temperatures only, not sunlight exposure), giving the obvious and unwavering fact that humans in general are better adapted to warm climates(our natural climate is therefore a warm one, even for Yaghans, even though they have been living in a cold one for 10,000 years, which to some puny minded individuals seems like a long time, but it isnt on an evolutionary scale), what the ideal warm climate is remains to be deduced.
You have again overlooked the obvious conclusion. The Yaghans have been shown to have a higher body temperature and a higher metabolism. This means that if they had moved to a much hotter environment(such as East Africa), then they would have suffered far more than an East African Negro who was better adapted to such a warm climate.
In the case of Caucasians, most would prefer temperate climates even without access to technology. After all, without technology, there is no air-conditioning with strong chances of sunburn etc..For whites living in warm climates like Saudi Arabia minus air-conditioning is pure hell. I experienced that once.
