User talk:Ajraddatz

Hello, and welcome to my talk page!

Leave a message if you need anything. I'll be glad to help you if I can.

New scientific evidence supports a partial Multi-Regional evolution of humans & the independent evolution of the Chinese from Homo Pekinensis, the Chinese species of Homo Erectus

Dear Ajraddatz,

Thank you for your good faith edits!

I am a scientist specializing in the fields of anthropology and paleoanthropology and you must realize that I have no intention, never had and never will, of so-called "edit warring." While you and numerous other editors have been attempting to push their personal POV "that Chinese are indeed descended from anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens" on these pages despite the fact it is a disputed hypothesis and that those views are now being shown by peer reviewed scientific studies to be partially incorrect. While most scientists agree there was indeed an "out of Africa" migration of anatomically modern Homo Sapiens, NOT all humans alive today are descendants of this branch of humans. Many people in China are descendants of a separate species of humans known as the Homo Pekinensis, a separate species of Homo Erectus. And just like the Neanderthals evolved independently of African Homo Sapiens from their ancestor Homo Heidelbergensis, the modern Chinese also descend from their own species of Homo Erectus Pekinensis. Below I have provided you links with irrefutable scientific evidence showing that the Neanderthals in Europe interbred with African Homo Sapiens in much the same way that some Chinese Homo Erectus Pekinensis have interbred with African Homo Sapiens. This is supported by the fact many Chinese today carry uniques genes from archaic humans such as Homo Erectus Pekinensis, this has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals which I have provided links below for you to read.

Numerous Archaeological fossil studies and as well as the relatively recent genetic studies have shown that many modern Chinese people retain both the genes and their consequential phenotypic morphological traits, such as flattened faces, small frontal sinuses, reduced posterior teeth, shovel-shaped incisors, and high frequencies of metopic sutures, which are virtually absent in modern day European, Middle Eastern, and African populations but widely present in the modern population of the Han Chinese. This presents fossil evidence strongly suggesting a direct evolutionary lineage of the modern Chinese people from their ancestors of the species Homo Erectus Pekinensis.

I would like to introduce to you the peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting a separate independent evolution of the modern Chinese people from an archaic species of Homo Erectus, specifically the separate species known as Homo Pekinensis. Below I have provided the results of scientific DNA studies that provide strong irrefutable support for an independent origin of the Chinese from Homo Pekinensis. These scientific studies have both been published inpeer reviewed scientific journal and are well received by the scientific community. Please take some time to read them and feel free to ask me any questions regarding human evolution.

1.) Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

2.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer

3.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals Global Patterns of Human DNA Sequence Variation in a 10-kb Region on Chromosome 1 by Ning Yu, Z. Zhao, Y.-X. Fu, N. Sambuughin, M. Ramsay, T. Jenkins, E. Leskinen, L. Patthy, L. B. Jorde, T. Kuromori and W.-H. Li

4.) BMC Biology Journal of Biology "Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations" by Shi H, Zhong H, Peng Y, Dong YL, Qi XB, Zhang F, Liu LF, Tan SJ, Ma RZ, Xiao CJ, Wells RS, Jin L, Su B.

5.) National Geographic Society Peking Man (Homo Pekinensis) Lived in China 200,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Thought

It is tempting to simply dismiss the new peer reviewed scientific evidence that contradicts the previously accepted "out of Africa" theory of human evolution where, supposedly, all humans were descended from the same group of Homo Sapien ancestors and which subsequently gives "strong support" in favor of an independent East Asian origin of a separate archaic branch or separate species of humans, the modern day Chinese people. But unfortunately, the reality of human evolution during the past 4 billions of life on our planet Earth is not as clear cut as the "out of Africa" theory attempts to address it. The "out of Africa" theory tries to say that "ALL" humans are descended from the same group of anatomically modern "Cro Magnon" or Homo Sapien Sapiens and while some of the older previous studies did initially seem to support that theory, those studies were not all inclusive and did not test many aspects of human genetics and evolution. But within the last few years, new genetic evidence has been discovered as a result of numerous scientific studies that have been conducted which lend a strong support for the theory that the modern Chinese people, or conservatively, a subpopulation of the Chinese gene pool are descended NOT from anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens like other humans on Earth, but rather that they are the product of a separate evolutionary lineage going back at least 1.8 million - 2 million years ago to Homo Erectus in East Asia. And that the modern Chinese people today are not necessarily classified as "Homo Sapien," but more accurately they could be classified as a highly evolved anatomically modern form of Homo Pekinensis. You must remember that regardless of whether we are talking about Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Erectus that we are talking about human beings. And even though they are a classified as a separate species of human beings, nothing can take away their "humanity," for if one of them were dressed up in a modern day suit, they would still be recognized as "humans."

Please watch the evidence on these links:

1.) Scientific evidence from the Chinese Academy of Sciences
2.) All Non Africans Living Today Are Part Neanderthal
3.) New evidence that Neanderthals interbred with Humans

Adding further support to the Multi-regional theory of human evolution are the recent DNA discoveries that anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis or the Neanderthal man, in direct contradiction to the thesis of the "out of Africa" theory which specifically states that Homo Sapien did not interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis and that the Neanderthal simply "went extinct." Which has now been shown in peer reviewed scientific studies to be untrue, and that the Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis did indeed interbreed with each other. These studies are additionally supported by previous archaeological finds that show skeletons of humans who show hybrid morphological and anatomical traits of both species of humans, both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis.

Please read the following evidence:

1.) NewScientist Neanderthal genome reveals interbreeding with humans
2.) Archaic admixture in the human genome, Neanderthal genes in modern humans
3.) Signs of Neanderthals Mating With Humans
4.) Discovery News "Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves"
5.) USA Today Neanderthals and humans interbred, fossils indicate
6.) BBC "Neanderthals 'mated with modern humans'"
7.) Official report Neanderthal/Homo Sapien interbred
8.) Cosmos Humans and Neanderthals interbred, according to our anatomy
9.) Neanderthals live on in DNA of humans

Thank you!

-- 71.68.251.209 talk

Sorry

Im sorry about those edits on Harriet Tubbman. My son likes to mess with stuff like you have on your website. It won't happen. Im sorry once again for his offensive material.

Thanks, Jeff Albertson  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.94.65 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to sign up to help with the account creation process.

Like it says above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide thoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process.

You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly.

Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day (a day being from 0:00 UTC to 23:59 UTC), although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed". However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.

Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hello there! Please note that signature templates are forbidden, and cut down on the signature; it should only be around 255 characters. Yours is much too long. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made my signature template so that it is impossible for anyone but myself or an administrator to modify it, with it existing in a .css file. That should make it fine. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, forgot about the reasons other than the potential for vandalism. I've un-templated my signature. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSS pages are for code, not anything else. Templates are also not to be in signatures. Please subst all instances of it as quickly as you can. The reason templates are forbidden is because it adds to the server load. If it doesn't work in your user preferences, then, it shouldn't be used at all. —fetch ·comms 02:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is code, just not css. At any rate, I've changed it now. Please cool down. There is no reason why you should be using that tone over something so trivial. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature has broken the RfA numbering thing in multiple instances. Aditya Ex Machina 05:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing without transclusion now. Some of your old signatures with {{User:Ajraddatz/sig1.css}} still cause problems. They can create misformatting in some contexts, for example at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Nev1 where your support breaks the numbering as mentioned by Aditya. It doesn't break for me at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nev1 2 but it can apparently cause problems when a page with {{User:Ajraddatz/sig1.css}} is itself transcluded on another page. Please simplify the code at User:Ajraddatz/sig1.css and check that the numbering works at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Nev1 (you can purge this after editing the transcluded signature). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed that instance, done what you requested, and looked through at other discussions to see if the same effect happened. My sincere apologies about not thinking through what I was doing >.> Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]