I was well aware of the ongoing debate between classifying neandertals as homo sapiens or not. But I'm also aware of certain errors regarding the mtDNA analysis, namely the lack of clarity of how rapidly mtDNA evolves, or how exactly we should expect ancient hominids to be compared to us, which again, is subjective in the 1st place. For the sake of convenience, I simply used the classic taxonomic approach my source used, which is not one-sided and goes into detail about the debates and elaborates on the sides of both arguments, etc. The analysis of bones and skulls of modern homo sapien sapiens found in Europe that shows Neandertal traits may indicate interbreeding or may not (which an objective person would conform with the former, ie that analysis of bones does show interbreeding with Neandertals, - if you want, I can go into detail on this when I have time, but I wouldn't expect a person like you to be objective anyway), so whether or not they are homo sapiens isn't my point, but just how much they contributed to the ancestral lineage of certain modern populations is debatable. I didn't expect such a strong reaction from the likes of you.
Funny. I never claimed that homo erectus or those "miniture human found in Java" are homo sapiens.
Because that wasn't my point. The point was that genetic contributions from Africa to the lineage of East Asians may have as much weight as does local development among local populations. I brought up the evidence from Zhoukoudian to back that up, because analysis of the remains indicate local developments, ie a continuity from homo erectus to premodern forms to modern humans, and also the findings of homo erectus traits in certain East Asian populations. It means that claiming that "all Far East Asians came from Iran" is one-sided and ignores everything else that happened 40,000 years ago or other genetic contributions to the ancestral lineage of East Asians. It means that your "theory" is oversimplified and also means that you need to read more carefully next time.
LOL. And you can nitpick all you want. Your source doesn't even prove your theory at all. If any, it refutes it.
Remarkable. Never has been a false accusation driven to such elaboration. I didn't say that homo heidelbergensis is an example of a homo sapien and neandertal hybrid. I've brought up heidelbergensis finds in China, ie the one from Dali, to support the "local continuity" theory of hominid evolution in China.
It seems you copied and pasted my post on wordpad or something right when I posted it, logged off, and then replied to it without having looked at what I changed in my post. I did that in a rush because I had to get to class in a few minutes. Anyway, I've found the article here and its from National Geographic and also saw a thread on AE by "Gubruk Jangoon". So no further need to playing a smallman's game and ridicule me on this little mistake when it's clearly your own incompetence when it comes to citing your sources correctly.
mtDNA does evolve rapidly, in fact it evolves in a certain rate. That is why a time frame can be measured out of the devient from two subjects.
In this case, between the Neandertals and Humans, the time frames of the split off in species is 500,000 years.
When people are talking about human migration in regard to history, the term human, is refering to Homo Saipiens. Not the migration of Homo Erectus or Homo neanderthalensis.
In the Y-Chromosome studies, all Eurasian shared this one common father. I am not claiming there is only one human migration, or one human migration into the Far East. In fact I support the view of constant migration into Asia. But my point is the migration into the Far East moved from Central Asia into the Tarim then further Eastward. That is how the Native AMericans got to America. That is how Huang Di moved to the Yellow River area, and that is how Tungus people moved into Siberia.
There is relatively little historical indications that after moving into the Far East, people migrated from South East Asia northward. By the time Indians started to move Eastward along the coast of South East Asia, it was already recorded by history. Even the Austronesians followed the same pattern of North to South, West to East.
You kept claiming proving the relations between Homo Neandertalensis and Homo Saipiens is not your point.
Likewise my point is that people moved in this direction. And 月氏 and Tocharians might have historically lived in Bactria and still had ties with the area until it was over taken by Seleucids.
If Zhang Qian's records are as thorough as it seems, this line is what I am referring to:
康居 is Samarkand, know by the Greek as Marakanda. People in Samarkand speaks Tajik
Samarkand is in fact one of the oldest city in the world. By the time Zhang Qian heard of 月氏 fighting with 匈奴 and set off to to establish an allience, till the time he got to 大月氏 was less than 20 years. Yet it is said its customes and 月氏 are 大同俗 (not 大致同俗).
Zhang Qian was captured by the Huns for about 10 years. Let say 20. Then he only took less than a mounth to get to 大宛 Ferghana. From there he probably got to Samarkand in less than a year.
When 月氏 was mentioned, it only said 月氏 is a nomad people just like the Huns (行國，與匈奴同).
So in less than 20 years, Samarkand adapted 月氏 customes? or did they share the same customes to begin with?
mudanin kata mudanin kata. kata siki-a kata siki-a. muhaiv ludun muhaiv ludun. kanta sipal tas-tas kanta sipal tas-tas. kanta sipal tunuh kanta sipal tunuh. sikavilun vini daingaz sikavilun vini daingaz.