This article backs up what I figured out myself, about the mechanics of mammalian hybridization as it pertains to the Neanderthal phenomena.
Mitochondrial Eve goes back 150-200 kya, whereas yDNA Adam only goes back less than 60 kya. That's like saying modern Human female DNA is more than 3x older (if you trace it all the way back) than modern Human male DNA.
It also states that Neanderthal DNA markers are mainly carried in y and x chromosomes, but not so much in our ~mitochondria (although I believe it's probably responsible for the rash of mutations on the mtDNA 'R' macrogroup clades, which also date back approximately to the same age, chronologically, as modern Human male DNA).
The Neanderthal / Hybrid factor (or as I pointed out earlier, the factor responsible for the recessive Rh- blood trait, which also dates back to about 40-60 kya), along with other Hybrid factors, must account for most or all of the mutations in yDNA (far greater rate, than in mtDNA). The Rh- trait specifically, is found most concentrated in Indo-European / Aryan bloodlines; and oddly enough, within certain particular indigenous, aboriginal, native, Hunter-gatherer tribes such as the Basques or Cherokee, which have practiced very closed societies compared with other populations -- and which were long ago corrupted genetically by Indo-European / Aryan invasions. Other oddball varieties of blood traits indicative of possible different types (other than with Rhesus macaque monkeys) of hybridization, are found in other populations worldwide. I am curious to learn more about all of the differing blood groups (besides the Rhesus groups), such as the Duffy and Diego groups, etc.
If the Human species has existed for upwards of 170,000 years (some people claim we've been around for over a million years) - why are we only recently emerging from the Stone Age? We've only had electrically wired homes, for perhaps 125 years! We've only had sophisticated computor technology for perhaps 75-100 years TOTAL! We've only had airplanes and cars, for about as long as we've had electricity. Microwave ovens for maybe 50 years. And we've only had cell phones for what, 25-35 years? (They used to be called, "mobile phones"). LOL.
Something has damaged us as a species, keeping us ~down, like the apes. It's the same thing which is keeping us down, and destroying our civilizations even as we pretend or believe that everything is just hunky-dory.
Why was the Neolithic Revolution, which gave us organized agriculture, and tools other than stone ones, only about 12,000 years ago? And please don't blame it on the 'Ice Ages', because we've survived several of those, while other species have failed. And why did those leaps in technology correspond with such institutions which limit our personal freedoms, as Patriarchy, Slavery, and Monarchy? Why did we further sink into abuses of Human Rights, such as Fascism, Genocides, Famines, Wars, etc.? Where is the progress? You don't really think that high-faluting gadgets, like video games, industrial machines, Cern, Haarp, nuclear fission, and weapons of mass destruction, can really substitute for true social evolution, security, safety, health, and stability, do you? How is it that the things which harm us the most, can possibly be good for us in the long run?
We barely crawled out of our caves and unheated stone castles, only to crash our spaceships and other highspeed transportation. So proud of those spaceshuttles, even though they have nearly destroyed our atmosphere: the air we breath. So proud of those nuclear power plants, though they have poisoned not only the air, but our water and land, too. Way to go, guys. You wanted excitement and stimulation, now you've got it in spades.
I get so tired of hearing Darwinists imply that we must destroy ourselves as a species, in order to ~survive. Do they not comprehend how contradictory is that statement? Of course they do not. You can't ~reason with monkey or ape Hybrids. They know NOTHING of logic; only about fun and games, sparring, competition for food and sex, and cutesy circus tricks.
By the way, lest we forget: ~women also inherit the Neanderthal markers, just not so much through their dominant mitochondria DNA (although I'm sure modern mtDNA is greatly damaged); it's mostly through their x chromosomes, Mendelian style (ie Rh- bloodtypes, blue eyes, and other characteristically recessive-gene Neanderthal features). So much for sexual selection, Darwinists. But of course, like attracts like. Dumb blonds with big boobs and blue eyes are Nazis' ideal women. Either that or homosexual love, take your pick. Now they even prefer android or robot sex (less demanding partners)...
If as I stated many times before, female ~Humans (Homo Sapiens sapiens) were bred at some time in ancient history with male Rhesus monkeys, producing the sub- / hybrid species known as Neanderthal, the artificially created animals would have had practically (but not necessarily ~quite, because I'm sure the act of hybridization triggers mutations in all DNA, including mitochondria) Human ~mtDNA, and mixed monkey/Human y and x DNA. Then if both male and female offspring of the original Neanderthal creatures were rebred with more Humans, you would get further mixing of the DNA. However female Neanderthals, when mated with male Humans, probably only produced at most one offspring; the remainder would have most likely been stillborn. (No Rho-gam at $400 per shot, in early times).
Which means that in times past, the only way that Rh- women could be adequately procreative, was with Rh- men. Most of their children with Rh+ men, would have died. Tubal pregnancies are also more commonplace in Rh- women, so many adult Rh- pregnant women might have died also. Whereas Rh+ women with Rh- men often died in childbirth, due to the men's unusually shaped craniums and the lack of caesarian technology or forceps for birthing. But the babies of the Rh+ women who died in childbirth, would usually survive if nursed by another recent mother (ie a wet-nurse).
And many ~carriers of the Rh- recessive gene survived, too, randomly producing Rh- individuals along with more 'carriers' of the Neanderthal genes.
mtDNA is more or less preserved, when compared to y- and x- chromosome DNA. mtDNA is usually inherited in replication, whereas the other chromosomes undergo recombination at conception. Then if you consider that the Neanderthal was a very, very agressive critter who killed Human males and raped Human females, it becomes more clear how so many 'Indo-European' tribes are built partly on more ancient clades (N, Y, X, W, I, etc.: pre-R) of indigenous Caucasoid mtDNA, with mixed combinations of Asian and / or Middle Eastern and Rhesus macaque (Neanderthal) DNA y, x, and other chromosomes.
I'm sure if you look into the x chromosomes of Indo-Europeans, you will find many demographic parallels with their y chromosome Indo-European / Aryan 'brothers', which you will not find on the x and / or y chromosomes of more isolated, indigenous, Hunter-gatherer Caucasoids (or other tribes, for that matter). Some populations might express more of the Neanderthal / recessive gene markers on either one or the other sex chromosome (I would expect to see them more often on yDNA though, especially in much older, ancient populations / samples).
In other words, Caucasoid people or tribes of Europe or America, who were much ~later invaded by the Neanderthal-descended marauders than say, the Basques, Altai, or Saami (all originally indigenous Europeans) -- or who haven't had their DNA corrupted yet (by conquering, roving tribes of Indo-Europeans / Aryans), at all -- should exhibit uniquely different types of markers than Eurasians. Which is not to say that they haven't been corrupted by ~other Hybrid types, of course. The Denisovan is one case in point.
The 'Indo-Europeans' or 'Aryans' were known to frequently maraude, plunder and invade virgin territories, in bands of male armies, without bringing their 'families' along. They didn't have much concern about leaving their 'families' behind, when doing so. As they went forth, conquering indigenous tribes (such as the Basques, Saami, or much later the Cherokee), the Neanderthal Hybrid men took Human women for mates, from among the conquered populations. Thus later, even those originally indigenous, Cro Magnon type tribes eventually began to resemble the Indo-European or Aryan ones, genetically -- except with more recently applied mutations and recessives on their genomes.
That is especially true amongst certain tribes like the Basques and others, who reacted to the violence and intrusions of invasion, by 'circling their wagons', so to speak, becoming more culturally exclusive in their marital habits. That sort of reaction (tribal isolation) is often characteristic of Matriarchal societies, wherein the women are revered and respected equally with the men. In those cultures, following invasion and corruption of their DNA, after isolating themselves from 'foreigners' or 'strangers' for many long decades or centuries: they end up concentrating among themselves through inbreeding, such recessive genetic traits as blue or green eyes, Rh- blood, straight blond or red hair, etc. Typically only the marauding, roving pirate types continue to outbreed indiscriminately.
However, once a civilization has concentrated enough of the weaker recessive traits, it begins to tip into a state of biological (quickly followed by social) decline. Their naturally motivated attempts to survive the onslaughts of invasion through isolation work very well for awhile, but not forever. So after a period of time, although the genetically damaged, corrupted tribe may maintain to some extent its customary exclusivity and distrust of outsiders, when it eventually slips far enough into decline, one of the effects produced by the biological / genetic transformations brought on by hybridization, is a fairly gradual switching of its family structural mode from the Matriarchal to a more Patriarchal society. The switch is more or less gradual, but usually complete finally. I expect the tribal civilization at that point in its devolution, would essentially be on the verge of collapse. It would have lost most of its Human characteristics and behaviors. It would have become like all Patriarchies: aggressive, violent, indigent, itinerant, consumeristic, diseased (both mentally and physically), loud, chaotic, enslaved or enslaving, grandiose, narcissistic, filled with false pride, controlling, domineering, pathologically competitive, deceptive and secretive, wasteful, inefficient, foolish, and so on.
A stern-faced Alpha male.
A "museum-quality" skeleton... notice the similarity of the skull structure shape, to that of some Neanderthals. Keep in mind however, that one of the drawbacks of hybridization between mammals is the unpredictible nature of inherited traits in offspring. After all, biological inheritance is achieved through DNA -- at molecular or atomic levels. That leads to sometimes very bizarre, even monstrous phenomic expressions. You usually end up with something that is nothing at all like either species bred. Yet of the two species, Humans have the dominant genes.
From the looks of it, pure Human males are all but extinct. That would explain why there is wider genetic variation between women and men, generally, than there is between the Human species and Chimpanzees or Rhesus monkeys. A very sad state of affairs especially for us women and children, and for any rare men that may be left to see what has happened to their species. A tragedy for Humanity.
[Rhesus macaque monkeys are often used in medical research and production, due to their biological similarities to modern Human beings. The monkeys carry SIV (an immune deficiency disorder similar to HIV), Herpes, and Papilloma viruses (genital warts).]
I often read comments on forums, where (usually men) downplay the whole problem of Human genetic corruption by Neanderthal and other hybrid genes. They say things like: "it's no worse than two different ethnicities"; "it's actually good for the species"; "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger". Wrong, it's not good.
Obviously, the hybridization of Human males has destroyed their brains and thus their intellectual powers, reason and logic, along with their Human morals. This is one reason why cannibalism has recently become so commonplace and acceptable to the mainstream (male dominated) society, that some European (Danish or Dutch?) country made a spectacle of it on worldwide available live television, for even children to be exposed to the heinous suggestion that it is or could be 'normal' or 'desirable' to eat Human flesh. Similarly, in the book, "Our Kind", anthropologist Marvin Harris made cannibalism seem like something normal and even healthy; he also was a devotee of Darwinism, Patriarchy, Evolution and the 'survival of the "fittest"'.
Neanderthals were known to be bloodthirsty, primitive, stupid yet vicious cannibals. They were not the romanticized version that we are presented with in contemporary media propaganda.
The Human species has reached a point of crisis, from which it may never recover. Our male dominated society is destroying the entire planet along with themselves. More hybridization and other ghastly medical and biological experiments, greed, materialism, war, satanism, sorcery, superstitions, hedonism, all sorts of inhuman excesses are taking us down the road to extinction. It won't be long at this rate, before beautiful Earth (our Eden) becomes another dead planet like Mars.
But the dummies believe that when they've dirtied this cage enough to make it completely inhabitable, they can just simply hop on a space ship (like George Jetson; or Capt. Kirk, Scotty and Mr. Spock) and breeze over to explore some of those foreign landscapes which they find so appealing: dead planets or ones that can't possibly support Human (or even Hybrid) life. Delusional monkeys.
They don't possess the insight to see that they're destroying not only Human and animal life (along with the entire biosphere), but their own in the process... That core meltdown in Japan: do any of our insane leaders behave as if they maybe shouldn't have allowed that to happen in the first place? Umm, no. The governments and corporations responsible for that "accident", owe the rest of us a HUGE debt. They can never repay us enough, for what they are putting us all through, and for everything that they have done while exploiting the earth and everything in it.
Does anyone get that things generally are not alright in our governments and in politics? Uh, yes. But do they understand why that is so? Only vaguely, because our "People perish for lack of knowledge". Not because Humans are stupid, but because we are being deprived of information, and lied to most all of the time. We are in as much danger, as any unarmed person faced with a grizzly bear or mountain lion would be, when hiking in the woods alone. Why? It's because of either the paucity of morals or the misunderstanding, misinterpretation of them, by our elected officials. It's time to hold them responsible for their actions and for non-performance of their duties. It's time to purge our government of the secret society religious freaks: the Freemasons, Zionists, Darwinists, and all of their related, connected associates. Our government is being run by a racist, criminal mafia. Corporations are illegally being favored over Individual citizens. Corporations are not Human beings -- citizens are. Does a moral person stand still and allow a bear or lion to feast upon them or their family members? NO, we do not. We fight back or take appropriate steps to prevent such things from ever happening to us, to our loved ones or to any innocent, weak, gentle victims. Human beings are morally superior to beasts, not appropriate sacrifices to them.
Real Matriarchies are rarely seen anymore: everywhere you look, you find Patriarchal societies keeping extremely tight controls over their women and children (as if we are property); Patriarchal societies constantly at war with one another, involving women and children in the fighting, and not truly protecting their families.
Also everywhere in the world including the US, which insists that it's an egalitarian society where women have "equal opportunities" with men, women can't seem to ever earn as much 'money' or gain enough material security to keep themselves out of the poorhouse. Unless of course, they happen to be sexually attractive to a rich (powerful) man, or to men in general (ie glamorous celebrities, actresses, divas, gold-diggers and hookers, etc.). As Erich Fromm has stated: the "market orientation" of our society is its weakness. People are treated like everything else, in a Corporate State: like commodities.
The devolution of Human beings due to early hybridizations also explains the presently very high rates of divorce, open marriages, polygamy, bigamy and marriages based not on love but on breeding principles (ie royal and aristocratic bloodlines -- every narcissist and egotist believes himself to be 'special'; and marriages of convenience -- whether economic, religious, material, social, political, or sexual).
And it explains why women are never allowed into powerful positions of leadership (which require only intelligence and wisdom, not brute strength) -- unless they are very obedient to the powerful (or rich) men surrounding them. In other words, unless they may be easily controlled. Women and even most men in politics, are little more than actors, puppets, parrots. If you look at most of the women corporate or government heads, they too are 'cloned' men: they are little more than the mouthpieces of certain alpha males. They do not behave like true women, and if they did -- they would not be in those positions. Men praise them, because they are obedient, good servants to their cause: male domination.
And some of the women in high office, aren't even real women, genetically or biologically: they're transvestites and/or hermaphrodites. Example: Janet Napolitano.
As for men, unfortunately for most of us, nearly all of them are followers, too. The few leaders are alpha types, power hungry and morally impoverished. They're not too bright, either, or we wouldn't be in this situation now.
(My views are not identical to Potvin's, but he's on the right track nevertheless.)
(More interesting thoughts on the same subject.)
Also see Stan Gooch's books.
(My views are not identical to Potvin's, but he's on the right track nevertheless.)
(More interesting thoughts on the same subject.)
Also see Stan Gooch's books.