"Archaic Humans" Don't Have Gene Expression Like Actual Humans

 The article was titled "A new perspective on the genomes of archaic humans". 

The content of the article re-enforced a point I have made here over and over- archaic 
"humans" are not like humans. They were not like us. Naturalists have insisted on calling every member of the Genus Homo "human". We should start calling members of our species "Adamics" to counter their co-option of a word that originally meant only our species. 

There is DNA that makes proteins and there is DNA that regulates the DNA that makes proteins. Studies focusing only on the protein-making DNA may find lots of similarities, but this is like saying that a Chevy Chevette and a Chevy Corvette used the same bolts! How many of those bolts are used in what place and attaching what things matters a lot, even if the bolts are identical. In this case the study found hundreds of differences in regulatory DNA between Adamics,  vs. Neanderthals, and Denisovans. Excuse me, they found thousands, but hundreds where they could tell there was a functional difference. Those differences were clustered around brain and vocal tract regions. Things that very much make us who we are. 

UPDATE: Science Daily was even more explicit in its article: "This would suggest some kind of rapid evolution of those organs or some kind of a path that is specific to modern humans," said Gokhman"

That's kind of what we have been suggesting all along! Divine intervention can look like "rapid evolution" from afar. 

Earlier I had speculated about "What it means to be human" and pointed out the differences in a particular kind of speech/reasoning that is unique to us Adamics. Every word still applies and is worth a read, but if anything it appears that I gave the non-Adamic hominids too much credit. Due to the fantastic work of Dr. William Amos of Cambridge I wonder if these "others" ever successfully interbred with our ancestors, or if they did that is was a mistake which nature quickly erased. 

A narrative is being pushed in the name of science that the science itself does not support. These other hominids were not "so much like us". Our ancestors appear to be a distinct population. One which, if they insist on blurring distinctions and calling many species "human" (note that real science typically does the opposite and uses language to make finer and finer distinctions), I will be glad to respond to by calling our kind something akin to what scripture calls us; Adamics

                                                                    You Tube Channel