Banner
    Denisovans? Fossil Discovery Is Neither Modern Human Nor Neanderthal
    By News Staff | December 22nd 2010 02:26 PM | 27 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    A 30,000-year-old finger bone found in a cave in southern Siberia came from a young girl that was neither an early modern human nor Neanderthal, but instead belonged to a previously unknown group of human relatives who may have lived throughout much of Asia during the late Pleistocene epoch, according to new research (Reich, D. et al. Nature 468, 1053-1060 2010.

    The fossil evidence consists of just a bone fragment and one tooth but DNA extracted from the bone has yielded a draft 3-billion-letter nuclear genome sequence (Krause, J. et al. Nature 464, 894-897 2010), enabling the scientists to make some conclusions about this extinct branch of the human family tree, called "Denisovans" after the cave where the fossils were found.
    By comparing the Denisovan genome sequence with the genomes of Neanderthals and modern humans, the researchers determined that the Denisovans were a sister group to the Neanderthals, descended from the same ancestral population that had separated earlier from the ancestors of present-day humans. The study also found evidence of Denisovan gene sequences in modern-day Melanesians, suggesting that there was interbreeding between Denisovans and the ancestors of Melanesians, just as Neanderthals appear to have interbred with the ancestors of all modern-day non-Africans.

    "The story now gets a bit more complicated," said co-author Richard Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz, an assistant professor of biomolecular engineering in the Baskin School of Engineering. "Instead of the clean story we used to have of modern humans migrating out of Africa and replacing Neanderthals, we now see these very intertwined story lines with more players and more interactions than we knew of before." 

    The Denisovans appear to have been quite different both genetically and morphologically from Neanderthals and modern humans. The tooth found in the same cave as the finger bone shows a morphology that is distinct from Neanderthals and modern humans and resembles much older human ancestors, such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus. DNA analysis showed that the tooth and the finger bone came from different individuals in the same population.

    The finger bone was found in 2008 by Russian scientists in Denisova Cave, an archaeological site in southern Siberia.  Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, who had worked with the Russian scientists before, obtained the bone for his research on ancient DNA.  In Leipzig, researchers extracted DNA from the bone and sequenced the mitochondrial genome, a smaller DNA sequence separate from the chromosomal DNA and easier to obtain from ancient samples. The results, published earlier this year (Green, R. E. et al. Science 328, 710-722 2010), showed a surprising divergence from the mitochondrial genomes of Neanderthals and modern humans, and the team quickly began working to sequence the nuclear genome.

    "It was fortuitous that this discovery came quickly on the heels of the Neanderthal genome, because we already had the team assembled and ready to do another similar analysis," Green said. "This is an incredibly well-preserved sample, so it was a joy to work with data this nice. We don't know all the reasons why, but it is almost miraculous how well-preserved the DNA is."

    The relationship between Denisovans and present-day Melanesians was an unexpected finding, he said. The comparative analysis, which included genome sequences of individuals from New Guinea and Bougainville Island, indicates that genetic material derived from Denisovans makes up about 4 to 6 percent of the genomes of at least some Melanesian populations. The fact that Denisovans were discovered in southern Siberia but contributed genetic material to modern human populations in Southeast Asia suggests that their population may have been widespread in Asia during the late Pleistocene, said David Reich of Harvard Medical School, who led the population genetic analysis.

    It is not clear why fossil evidence had not already revealed the existence of this group of ancient human relatives. But Green noted that the finger bone was originally thought to be from an early modern human, and the tooth resembles those of other ancient human ancestors. "It could be that other samples are misclassified," he said. "But now, by analyzing DNA, we can say more definitively what they are. It's getting easier technically to do this, and it's a great new way to extract information from fossil remains."

    In the light of the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes, a new, more complex picture is emerging of the evolutionary history of modern humans and our extinct relatives. According to Green, there was probably an ancestral group that left Africa between 300,000 and 400,000 years ago and quickly diverged, with one branch becoming the Neanderthals who spread into Europe and the other branch moving east and becoming Denisovans. When modern humans left Africa about 70,000 to 80,000 years ago, they first encountered the Neanderthals, an interaction that left traces of Neanderthal DNA scattered through the genomes of all non-Africans. One group of humans later came in contact with Denisovans, leaving traces of Denisovan DNA in the genomes of humans who settled in Melanesia.

    "This study fills in some of the details, but we would like to know much more about the Denisovans and their interactions with human populations," Green said. "And you have to wonder if there were other populations that remain to be discovered. Is there a fourth player in this story?"

    Comments

    Hfarmer
    So according to this African's would have the most advanced DNA.  I guess the Afrocentrists were partially right about something. 
    Neanderthals appear to have interbred with the ancestors of all modern-day non-Africans.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    "African's would have the most advanced DNA" ... and the evidence is that African countries and societies are the most advanced !

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Is there really such a thing as advanced DNA?
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Hank
    Does it matter?  :)     That comment read 'kook' from letter one but your understated question made me chuckle and is much nicer than what I would have written.
    Hfarmer
    Lol.  Hey now.  For the longest time Black Africans were supposed to be the least evolved of all peoples.  While the Afrocentrist spoke of Africans being the original people.  Either point of view is kooky.  
    There can of course be no advanced DNA since evolution has no goal but survival of what ever DNA is most fit.... what DNA is most fit.... what ever DNA survives.  

    However the ignorant who read something like the article above will make it into a racial thing one way or the other. Trust me. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    ArchyFantasies

    I don't think any serious scientist would think that. Racism has no place in science (or anywhere) and anyone who takes a superiority marker away form this is defiantly a kook

    "This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." ~ Carl Sagan
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    I think this is a really interesting breakthrough in our whole understanding of human evolution. According to an article in ‘the Australian’ newspaper the professor of human evolution at the Australian National University, Colin Groves said :-
    "What it now suggests is that the European branch, the Neanderthaloids, were actually a full Eurasian branch, not just European -- and that they had an eastern and a western subdivision."
    The director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at the University of Adelaide, Alan Cooper, also said that gene-sequencing technology was revolutionising the study of human evolution :-
    "We've moved from testing existing hypotheses that have been based on traditional science -- fossils and archeology, where we're just testing things that were already known -- to actually making new hypotheses ourselves," ..."This thing wasn't even supposed to exist -- there were no remains for it, no knowledge of it -- and yet the genetics is now demonstrating complete chunks of the human tree that were not even known."
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    How many tens of thousands of other mis-identified bone fragments discovered throughout the years languish in museums and universities waiting for a curious researcher to sequence their DNA?

    "Is there a fourth player in this story?"

    Why limit yourself to four?

    I'm being picky. Humans are referred to as "who."
    "A 30,000-year-old finger bone found in a cave in southern Siberia came from a young girl (who) was neither an early modern human nor Neanderthal,"

    Happy New Year,
    Doug

    My spin is this, the bush men of Africa are thought to be the 'Original modern humans' ie Adam and Eve. when there offspring left Africa they went 2 ways. Towards Europe and Towards Asia. Those who were Europe bound bumped into the Neanderthals, interbred coexisted and learned from each other. Eventually white skin and red hair were not the only thing we got by this melding of species. The other group who trekked off to Asia were met by Early Hominids who again interbred sharing knowledge customs and physical characteristics, thus you have White Europeans, Black Africans and Yellow Asians, again the absorption of all the different types of Bipedal Hominoids into the "Homo Saipan" blood line is still taking place otherwise we would all look the same! We are the only Hominid that comes in many colours!

    My spin is this, the bush men of Africa are thought to be the 'Original modern humans' ie Adam and Eve. when there offspring left Africa they went 2 ways. Towards Europe and Towards Asia. Those who were Europe bound bumped into the Neanderthals, interbred coexisted and learned from each other. Eventually white skin and red hair were not the only thing we got by this melding of species. The other group who trekked off to Asia were met by Early Hominids who again interbred sharing knowledge customs and physical characteristics, thus you have White Europeans, Black Africans and Yellow Asians, again the absorption of all the different types of Bipedal Hominoids into the "Homo Saipan" blood line is still taking place otherwise we would all look the same! We are the only Hominid that comes in many colours!

    Sorry for the double post!
    Kitt

    My spin is this, the bush men of Africa are thought to be the 'Original modern humans' ie Adam and Eve. when there offspring left Africa they went 2 ways. Towards Europe and Towards Asia. Those who were Europe bound bumped into the Neanderthals, interbred coexisted and learned from each other. Eventually white skin and red hair were not the only thing we got by this melding of species. The other group who trekked off to Asia were met by Early Hominids who again interbred sharing knowledge customs and physical characteristics, thus you have White Europeans, Black Africans and Yellow Asians, again the absorption of all the different types of Bipedal Hominoids into the "Homo Saipan" blood line is still taking place otherwise we would all look the same! We are the only Hominid that comes in many colours!

    "So according to this African's would have the most advanced DNA. I guess the Afrocentrists were partially right about something."

    Assuming there is such a thing as "advanced" DNA, it would NOT be found in those living in Africa or who left Africa in modern times. Rather it would be found in those who left Africa and interbred with the two groups -- one group living in Europe and the other in Asia. The interbreeding created a DNA mix that survived in Europe and Asia.

    It is NOT unfair to assume:

    1) those that left Africa earliest had behavior that was different than those who did not. Migrating thousands of miles not only required certain behavioral characteristics -- the migration itself caused selection in favor of those who could keep migrating.

    2) Those who left later, also behavior that was different than those who did not. Migrating thousands of miles not only required certain behavioral characteristics -- the migration itself caused selection in favor of those who could keep migrating.

    3) Mixing these groups not only created a new DNA mix which -- unless you believe behavior has no relation to DNA -- yielded a new set of behavioral potentials.

    4) If you look at the cultural history into modern times, the behaviors of these two mixed groups created what is considered as "advanced" culture. So while their DNA may not be more advanced, the cultures created by animals with the mixed DNA were certainly advanced.

    5) if one is not afraid to be politically incorrect, any comparison of the two mixed group's cultures (science and economics) -- at a point before colonialism can be blamed for anything -- with the cultures of those who remained in Africa, shows a significant difference. I leave it to you to honestly describe the long-term difference as well as the current difference.

    Bottom-line, anyone who thinks the study of DNA will not force the consideration of long-term and current differences in health and behavior (hence culture) are kidding themselves. Ranting against this is politically based and must be ignored.

    no one can prove we humans (modern humans) came out of africa (fact) yes hominoids came out of africa but to say modern humans came out of africa as fact is clutching at straws we need lots more evidence and facts ,, i believe modern humans evolved in europe/asia and in africa,,, we either evolved from homo erectus or homo ergastar (humanoids) (i believe we evolved from both i will get back to that later on),, if we evolved from homo erectus,,,, homo erectus was all ready in europe and asia before we evolved (mutated) into homo sapians, so the first modern humans could of been europeans and asians, because evidence suggests we did evolve from homo erectus,,,then we could of (might of) recolonized africa (but just the north because africans of the north are geneticly the same as europeans/asains not like the dark africans of the south) ,, because europeans and asians have got trace's of neanderthal dna in their genes (i believe neanderthals where our competetors not some distant relative i believe we both mutated evolved from homo erectus around the same time and then split in to our different groups and colognized the east and the the west north and south but ) ,,, my theory is,, we know homo ergastar split from homo erectus (in my opinion they evolved from another hominoid so homo erectus and homo ergastar where competators like homo sapians and neanderthals) and homo ergastar stayed in africa whilst homo erectus colonized europe and asia,, then we mutaded (evolved) into homo sapians (humans) and neanderthals in europe and asia from homo erectus,, but also homo ergastar (who stayed in africa) evolved/mutaded into homo sapians (humans) and a competator (humanoid like neanderthal) in africa,, but instead of spliting and going thier seperate ways for thousand and thousands of years like (homo sapians and neanderthal did in europe/asia) they mixed straight away ,,, this is why and could explain how europeans/asian homo sapians have neanderthal dna and african homo sapians have other hominoid dna in their genes..... we europeans/asians dont have the other hominoid dna africans do,,,,,and africans dont have neanderthal dna like us european/asians have,,,, does that make sence to anyone because i think its a canny good theory for the evidence and facts that are available to us,, its better than some i have read !!

    Gerhard Adam
    I think you've done a lot of thinking so that you can rationalize an irrelevant racist perspective.
    Mundus vult decipi
    i also believe racism (well atleast seperation of races) is a must in evolution terms,,, the lion and the tiger are the same thing but they are totally different also,, different social lives,, hunting tactics,, enviroments,, hair colours , etc etc and if you put them together in the wild and made them share lands, food etc you know they are not going to stand for that then it will become a case of (survival of the fittest) and they will fight untill one is left standing,,, evolution intended us to be different and have competators incase any catastrophy happens then atleast one of the race's might have the attributes to survive in the new enviroment there for keeping the human species alive or the felion species alive etc etc,,,, and people who say you become a highbryd when races mix are delusional,,, have you seen lion and tiger offspring they are big dozy usless things that can not look after themselves, they would die in a heart beat in the wild they could not survive,, its like a dog a dog is a mongrel its bread from wolves or dingo's or african wolves etc and if a dog had to look after its self in the wild no humans or nothing around it proberlys wouldnt survive and if it did it would become a scavanger not a predator like a wolf so there for it has went backwards in evolution (its a dead end) ,,,evolution and mother nature intended us to be different race's, attributes intelligence etc its a must for survival,, and no one can close to the achivments mother nature has give us and done on this earth so we shouldnt mess with it and leave it to its own devices because it is mother nature who created us and everything you set eyes upon

    Gerhard Adam
    Wow, I'm not even sure where to begin with such reasoning.  However, the most obvious place is your complete confusion regarding the difference between species and the designation of races.
    ...if a dog had to look after its self in the wild no humans or nothing around it proberlys wouldnt survive and if it did it would become a scavanger not a predator like a wolf so there for it has went backwards in evolution...
    Animals that were domesticated and are now living in the wild are referred to as feral.  Trust me ... they aren't scavengers and will be some of the most aggressive predators you will ever encounter.

    You cannot go "backwards in evolution".
    Mundus vult decipi
    why are you jumping to conclusions saying i am racist !! what have i said that is racist? seriously people like you really get on my nerves (if i dont think and speak like you then i shouldnt think and speak at all) you are nothing but an evolution communist (your way or the highway, everything you say and your theory is right and fact) get down off your moral high horse (morals are in the eye of the beholder and just because you think your morals are right certainly does not make you right)

    you are the kind of person who says when a e.g white and black have a mixed child you call it a hybrid hahaha when in reality it certainly is not,, its a mongrel,, it will only be a hybrid to the weaker of the race..
    hypothetical example.. an alien who has mastered light speed, anti gravity, time travel etc etc is far more advanced and superiour to any human,, so if a alien and a human had offspring a mixed child,, that child would only be a hybrid to the human (the weaker),,it would not be a hybrid to the alien,, that child (offspring) would never be as intelligent as the alien (fact) so its you creed who twist things (reality, facts and evidence) to suit your own agenda..

    and a mongrel dog,, it was bred from a predator (wolf etc) so if that dog was left to its own devices in the wild with no humans around its competetor would be the wolf (pure blood and breed created over thousands and thousands of yrs of evolution it is near enough perfect for what it does and the enviroment it lives in), and are seriously trying to tell me that a mongrel dog would be able to compete with a wolf? hahahaha delusional,, a wolf will beat a mongrel dog in all attributes,, hunting, survival, eye sight, smell, endurance, fittness, social life etc etc etc they is no way a mongrel dog could compete with a wolf (fact) so to survive the mongrel dog would have to become a scavanger, its ancestory was a predator then it has to becomes a scavanger for survival so there for it has went backwards because a scavanger will never be higher on the food chain than a predator (fact) and i dont even believe a mongrel dog would survive in the wild without humans being around..

    but forget all that what do you think of my theory ? i have took all the facts and evidence that we have so far into perspective and my own pespective on evolution and the very foundations of it (survival of the fittest the most intelligent,, they is always an alpha and an omega,, the predator and the prey, life and death death and destruction etc etc) to come to that conclusion,,, the out of africa theory that we came out of africa from one species (homo sapians) and homo sapians came from one hominid (homo ergastar) does not make sence what so ever when we know that every species on earth in nature and evolution has had or has got a competator,, eg, homo erectus and homo ergastar lived at the same time they probely's came from the same hominid and they where competators,, just imagine if for e.g homo sapians came from one hominid (homo ergastar) and on their way out of africa and in africa some thing happened to them and they died out that means all evolutions work from primates to homo sapians over millions of years would of died out there and then because the hominids they evolved from would of all ready died out,,so there for braking the whole evolutionary line ,, evolution does not work like that evolution always has a plan b, a plan ,c a plan d,,, and to think that homo sapians only evolved from homo ergastar in africa is not scientific at all,, because we know homo ergastar was exactly the same as homo erectus so to believe homo sapians couldnt of evolved from homo erectus (which was in europe and asia at that time does not make sence at all and it is not logical) if you belive "out of africa theory and homo sapians came (evolved/mutated) from homo ergastar then you also must belive that homo erectus could of evolved/mutated into homo sapians...

    and i am not racist but i am sick of people like you calling me racist because i challenge the (out of africa) theory, it is really starting to p!ss me off,, i might just become a racist to shut you and people like you up, i am a searcher of the truth and if the truth proves superiority and inferiorority between races then who am i to deny the truth, i will not lie to my self just to suit your individual (liberal) agender, but if you believe in evolution and you think africans and europeans are equalls it is canny delusional,, considering through out evolution from primates to humans the main attribute and difference in hominids is intelligence and brain size (intelligence/survival) that is the goal of evolution,, so to deny that brain size has nothing to do with intelligence and superiority then you are lying to yourself,,,, and it is fact that europeans/asians have bigger brains than africans so there for more capacity for intelligence..

    and all you have to do is look around you and you will see that everything that is any good came from white hands, the whole modern world and the very foundations of it came from white hands and brains,,, from technologys to sciences from medical advancments to space exploration white europeans are responsible for it all,, we can only have this conversation/debate because of charles darwin (white european) because of the foundations he put down and his intelligence and studies.. does that make me a racist for stating the truth the facts and the obvious?

    Gerhard Adam
    You can get as pissed off as you want, but you have no theory.  Even your correlation regarding brain size with higher intelligence isn't true, so just stop before you actually hurt yourself.

    You are simply clueless and are so far wrong, that I don't even know what to tell you to try and put you on course.  A simple start .... get your head out of your racist ass and start looking at data.
    Mundus vult decipi
    hahahahaha you are funny,,,i will destroy you in any intelligence test, please choose a subject i am dying for a laugh !!!! i proberlys know more about evolution than you have had hot dinners gayhard,, i have studied the data and the facts and the conclusion i have come to is that the (out of africa theory) has got so many holes in it that it simply cant be true,,, you can not prove we came out of africa as homo sapians and colonized the whole world (fact) yet you believe it as fact and it gets tought as fact, who is the clueless one, you might aswell believe in sky daddy's and sky fairy's with your mind set believing in something that no one can prove hahahahah fool !! i am not saying that my theory is right but you also should admit that the out of africa theory could be wrong and not take it as fact,, if you think you are so clever and know so much about evolution then disprove my theory with facts and evidence? the simple answer is you cant !! just like i cant disprove the out of africa theory,, but i have a counter theory to counter the out of africa theory that makes more sense in evolution terms than the out of africa theory,,, but i will tell you what i can prove is that homo erectus and homo ergastar where the same thing or came from the same thing (hominid) and i can prove with facts that homo erectus and homo ergastar split and ergastar stayed in africa and erectus colonized europe and asia !!!! so if you believe ergastar's line evolved/mutated into homo sapians, you must also believe that homo erecectus's line could of evolved/mutated into homo sapians, remember they are the same thing so to believe that ergastars line evolved/mutated into homo sapians and to believe that the other line erectus's line couldnt is selective dogma,,, you have got blinkers on and only taking into consideration the evidence you want so to come to your own agenda now that is fact....
    you are fixing the race for you horse to win, do you understand really really intelligent man hahahaha what a muppet if they is any one who should take their head out of their ass he is called gayhard... and from this day on i am a pure racist (nazi to the core,, son of the master race) thank you for freeing my mind and taking the shackle's and chains of me !!!!!

    Gerhard Adam
    I think I'll leave that as is, so that everyone can see just how "brilliant" you and your argument are. 
    ...i can prove is that homo erectus and homo ergastar where the same thing or came from the same thing (hominid)...
    ... and you concluded this all by yourself?

    At some point you might actually consider reading what I posted.  Perhaps then you wouldn't assume that I've proposed or defended any particular theory.  After all, there's not much point when it's clear that you're confusing the most basic terms and concepts.
    Mundus vult decipi
    this is the last time i am posting because i didnt come on here to get all personal and sqwabble and argue with individuals,, and i have read what you said, and the only thing you have said is i am racist and i have no theory,, how do you know it is not a theory it could be correct it could be pure bull sh!t, but what i do know is that no one can disprove it or prove it, after all its a theory so for you to say it is not a theory, who is confusing things and have got there head stuck in the sand,, after all science is trial and error, trial and error,,have a theory and try and disprove that theory,,

    and yes with the evidence and facts we have got so far you can conclude that homo ergastar and homo erectus where near enough the same thing by comparing skeletons, skulls, time lines from carbon dating and one of the basic rules of evolution that things have competators. and no i didnt come to that conclusion all by myself it is a well known theory that erectus and ergastar either where the same thing and split one stayed in africa and one colonised europe or they evolved/mutated as competators from their ancestoral hominid, all evidence points towards they where the same thing or evolved/mutated from the same thing,, do you even know anything about evolution or am i having a debate with a priest or something here?

    please explain to me how its clear what concepts and basics of evolution i have got mixed up? because i will admit it if i have, i am not going to lie to my self !! but personly i can not see that i have got the foundations (basics) of evolution mixed up,, the basics (foundations) of evolution are there for all to see all you have to do is open your eyes and look at nature and the animal kingdom and the insect kingdom and the facts and differences from primates to hominids..

    to me it seems as though you dont know the very foundations (basics) of evolution,,, what do think they are, love and peace everyone are equalls and the same lets all share each other foods and lands and mongrelise our genes and have a giant party hahaha life wouldnt exist if them where the basics of evolution (fact)

    and i am going to shoot a hole the size of the titanic in the out of africa theory right now,, i all ready said it in the original theory i posted but it might not of stood out because they was lots of different points to it,,, right if we all came from black africans they is no ifs or buts about it we should have the other hominid dna that black africans have got in there genes,, and we have not,, so with the evidence and facts we have got from decoding dna so far we cant of come from black africans,, i am not saying we have not got that hominid dna because they is a lot more decoding of dna to be done, but with the evidence we have got so far it puts a massive hole in the out of africa theory,, if we came from (black africans) we should have that unknown hominid dna in our genes, simple as that !!

    but even to have the argument people should not be racist because they came from black africans a hundered thousand year ago is rotton and pathetic,,, if people want to play the skin colour game and they cant be racist because they came from blacks a hundered thousand yrs ago lets go further back in in history to the very foundations of our species we all evolved from primates go and shave any primate and see what colour its skin is (pink) go and shave a baboon and see what colour its skin is, because it certainly is not black or brown,, but that is a pathetic argument i know,, but thats how i see the (you come from black africans so you are thick if you are racist) argument it is pathetic and so are the people who use it..

    to me evolution demands seperation of the races because ultimatly only one will survive if races live side by side and is that what you want the genocide of individual races,, is that not what makes us human the differences between races, is that not what the animal kingdom so beutiful the difference between species e.g the lion the tiger the cheetah etc etc if they where all the same it would get boring to look at real quick,, and if evolution wanted us to be the same wouldnt it of just took that path in the first place, yes it would of !!

    so does that make me racist because i believe in the seperation of the races and i look at nature and thats how i see it, and i see evolution and nature demands seperation of the species/races ,, if it does and that puts me in the man made steriotype of a racist then so be it

    Gerhard Adam
    please explain to me how its clear what concepts and basics of evolution i have got mixed up?
    OK, but I'm not wasting any more time on you.  One of the first and biggest problems that you have is that you clearly don't understand the difference between species and races. 

    Basically my problem is that you're simply an embarrassment to any race you lay claim to.
    Mundus vult decipi
    hahahah i said i wasnt going to reply no more but you are pathetic and obviously retarded,, i dont know the difference between races and species hahahahaha you are clutching at straws now,, right a lion and tiger are obviously the same (big cats) but it is fact they are classes as different species (FACT) search it brainiac you thick trollop,,,what a sad sad man you are if they is any one who is an embarrasment to human kind it certianly is you !!! no ifs or buts about it,, hahahahaha you publish on this website and you are as thick as you are (what a crime to science)

    i know this wont get posted but as you are the moderator so you will proberlys get to read it,, have you looked in the mirror lately? you look like a kiddie fiddling nonce you fat usless sh!t stain,, go and smack your wife about and rape a cow you dozy american window licker,, my wolf is more intelligent than you,, what a bone idle utter embarrassment to science, man kind and this website you are, its pure pathetic have you got a black wife and a mongrel kid hahahah unlucky do you realise its a giant mistake hahahah thats funny,, raflmao!!!!!!

    what basic I,Q have you got ? 10,,,15 what a joke you are

    MikeCrow
    What's an "american window licker"?

    BTW, it's much better that when you want to insult someone on their intelligence, you use correct spelling and grammar, otherwise it sort of defeats the purpose of the insult.
    Never is a long time.