PDA

View Full Version : Do modern Europeans partly descend from Neanderthal ?



Maciamo
17-09-06, 21:44
I have read further studies mentioning that at first (until about 40,000 years ago), Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons had the same tools, technology and lifestyle. Both buried their deaths, with similar ornaments. The Cro-Magnons then developed new tools, which were either copied or developed independently later by Neanderthals. As a matter of intelligence, both seem to be equivalent. Skeletons of hybrids of the two species dating from 25,000 years ago, around the time of the disapperance of Neanderthals, may indicate that their disappearance was indeed due to a genetic absorbtion by the increasingly numerous Cro-Magnons. This latter would have outnumbered Neanderthals due to to the cooling of the climate and the fact that Neanderthals always lived more North, in colder regions with less food, while Cro-Magnon could migrate south more easily via the Middle East to Africa, then come back more numerous when climate warmed up again. There have been signs of trade between the two species, which show that they had amicable contacts, and could very well of interbred with each others.

Furthermore, we see around 15-20,000 years ago, just after the hypothetical merger of the 2 species, the appearance of mural paintings in caves. This phenomemon is strictly limited to Western Europe. Why would such paintings have been done by European Cro-Magnon only, and not other Cro-Magnon (=Homo Sapiens) around the world ? I believe that this could be due to the racial convergence with Neanderthal, because Neanderthal had a more developed occipital lobe, and thus a better vision and visual memory, resulting in an earlier development of visual arts. This also explains the difference in skull shape, especially the more elongated occipital lobe, between Caucasoids and other humans, esp. compared to Mongoloids.

Some French and American researchers also found convincing evidence of an direct evolution from the Asian Homo Erectus toward the modern Asian Homo Sapiens, probably after interbreeding with a new arrival of Homo Sapiens from the Middle East.

Maciamo
12-11-06, 23:44
According to this article (http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/03/blonde-hair-blue-eyes.php), it would have taken 850,000 years to achieve the current diversity in hair and eyes colours in Europe. We know that Cro-Magnon moved out of Africa and the Middle East to "colonise" Europe around 40,000 years ago at the latest. This would support the theory that the blond or red hair, and blue or green eyes found only in Europe were indeed indeed inherited from an older occupant than Cro-Magnon, and there was only the Neanderthal before them. This is not yet a definitive proof, but another convincing evidence that modern Europeans, especially those of Germanic, Celtic and North Slavic descent, carry a more important part of Neanderthal genes that previously admitted.

Maciamo
12-10-07, 15:14
Carleton Coon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_Stevens_Coon) supports the theory that modern Europeans are of dual origins, consisting of Upper Paleolithic (mixture of Sapiens and Neanderthals) types and Mediterranean (purely Sapiens) types.

In his s book The Races of Europe (http://www.snpa.nordish.net/racesofeurope.htm), studying the population of Fehmarn Island, at the border of Germany and Denmark, he says :


Fifty per cent of the Fehmarn males studied were thick-set and heavy-bodied; a lateral or somatic constitutional type is common here. One-fourth of the group has a straight, presumably flattish occiput, despite the great vault length; a planoccipital cranial form is a strong minority trait. Half of the noses have straight or wavy profiles; 30 per cent have convex, and 20 per cent concave. The photographs indicate that heavy brow-ridges and exceptionally sloping foreheads are common.

The hair is brown as a rule among adults; 54 per cent could be classed as dark brown (Fischer #27, 4-7); the rest are divided between golden and ashen shades of light brown and blond. The hair as a rule darkens steadily throughout life; at the onset of senility, 80 per cent of all non-white hair observed was dark brown, as against 7 per cent at the age of 6 years. By contrast, the eyes are very light; less than 3 per cent have brown or dark-mixed shades (Martin #1-6); 78 per cent have eyes which are pure light or almost entirely so (Martin #13-16). This combination of very light eyes with brown hair is typical of Palaeolithic survivors in northern Europe, rather than of Nordics.

Maciamo
20-10-07, 23:30
Studies by Harvard anthropologist C. S. Coon in his book The Races of Europe (http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-II05.htm), modern Europeans could partially descend from Neanderthal.



The Neanderthal group was extremely variable, and showed within its ranks clear evidence of evolutionary change in a human direction.
...
In Palestine, which falls on a periphery of this cultural range, excavations in caves near the Sea of Galilee and Mount Carmel have revealed a number of Neanderthaloid skeletons which are different from those in Europe, and others which are, in fact, only partly Neanderthaloid.
...
In a nearby grotto, the Mugharet es-Skhul, were the remains of a number of individuals, including three male crania sufficiently complete for reconstruction and measurement, A preliminary publication of three of these skulls, and of the long bones of the same and other individuals, gives us a reasonably accurate idea of their position in the human family tree. Originally considered members of the Neanderthaloid species, they are now known to be fully human, although preserving a number of unmistakable Neanderthaloid characteristics.
...
In the skull, Skhul man is definitely intermediate between the Neanderthal and sapiens groups, but much closer to the latter, so that its inclusion in the living species cannot be denied.
...
In vault form, then, two are mainly sapiens, while one appears, from the measuremenis, to be largely Neanderthaloid.
...
Keith and McCown have demonstrated, beyond serious doubt, that the Skhul skeletons are intermediate between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, and that Neanderthal must therefore be included among the ancestors of modern races. Thus the opinions of Hrdlička, Aichel, and others, expressed earlier on the basis of equally valid but less striking evidence, are at last, in one sense or another, substantiated We now know that the Neanderthal strain did not become extinct, but passed over into the genetic stock of modern man. If this occurred once, it could have occurred a number of times. The field is flow open to discover survivals of non-sapiens accretions in modern races in other parts of the earth.

Maciamo
05-11-07, 13:04
This article (http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/033/0582/0330582.pdf) (PDF) suggest that interbreeding did indeed occur between Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis. It says that the H2 MAPT haplotype, only found among a minority of Europeans, could have been inherited from Neanderthal.


The tau (MAPT) locus exists as two distinct clades, H1 and H2. The H1 clade has a normal linkage disequilibrium structure and is the only haplotype found in all populations except those derived from Caucasians. The H2 haplotype is the minor haplotype in Caucasian populations and is not found in other populations. It shows no recombination over a region of 2 Mb with the more common H1 haplotype. The distribution of the haplotype and analysis of the slippage of dinucleotide repeat markers within the haplotype suggest that it entered Homo sapiens populations between approx. 10000 and 30000 years ago. However, sequence comparison of the H2 haplotype with the H1 haplotype and with the chimp sequence suggests that the common founder of the H1 and H2 haplotypes was far earlier than this. We suggest that the H2 haplotype is derived from Homo neanderthalensis and entered H. sapiens populations during the coexistence of these species in Europe from approx. 45000 to 18000 years ago and that the H2 haplotype has been under selection pressure since that time, possibly because of the role of this H1 haplotype in neurodegenerative disease.

Maciamo
16-12-07, 14:52
More articles on the subject :

Are you part-Neanderthal? (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1722109.htm)


People of European descent may be 5% Neanderthal, according to a DNA study that questions whether modern humans left Africa and replaced all other existing hominids.

The same study, published in the latest issue of the journal PloS Genetics, also says West Africans could be related to an archaic human population.
As both groups spread, the findings suggest we all have a bit of archaic DNA in our genes.

"Instead of a population that left Africa 100,000 years ago and replaced all other archaic human groups, we propose that this population interacted with another population that had been in Europe for much longer, maybe 400,000 years," says Vincent Plagnol.
Plagnol, a researcher in the Department of Molecular and Computational Biology at the University of Southern California, and colleague Assistant Professor Jeffrey Wall analysed patterns of ancestral linkage in 135 modern individuals.
...

Human Brain Carries at Least One Neanderthal Gene (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Human-Brain-Carries-at-Least-One-Neanderthal-Gene-39515.shtml)


New finds in Europe shed new light on the relation between modern humans and Neanderthal people. Skeletons discovered in Pestera Muierii (Woman's Cave) in Romania, in Czech Republic, in Portugal presents signs of interbreeding between the two species.

Whatever might have been this relationship - if there was sporadic or continuous interbreeding - a new study suggests that this could
have had a major impact on the evolution of the Homo sapiensf brain. Neanderthals, although long extinct, may have transmitted to our own species a lasting genetic gift. Till now, analysis of Neanderthal ancient DNA has revealed no signs of interbreeding.

Recently, a team at the University of Chicago reported that at least one gene, called microcephalin, involved in regulating brain growth (although the gene's precise role is not known), might have passed from the ancient species to ours.
...

and from another source :

Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0606966103v1)

about hair and skin now :

Red hair a legacy of Neanderthal man (http://www.dhamurian.org.au/anthropology/neanderthal1.html)


Red hair may be the legacy of Neanderthal man. Oxford University scientists think the ginger gene, which is responsible for red hair, fair skin and freckles, could be up to 100,000 years old. They say their discovery points to the gene having originated in Neanderthal man, who lived in Europe for 260,000 years before the ancestors of modern man arrived from Africa about 40,000 years ago.
...
The researchers homed in on the MC1R gene linked to hair and skin colour and used DNA analysis to find a variation that produced the same kind of pigmentation changes as in humans with red hair and pale skin.

The study, published in the journal Science, comes a week after another set of researchers looking at a different gene said Neanderthals may have been capable of sophisticated speech.

gThe papers make Neanderthals more like modern Europeans, with light skin and hair colour and language abilities, and yet there are no signs of interbreeding with modern humans,h Carles Lalueza-Fox, a molecular biologist at the University of Barcelona, said in a commentary in Science.
...

This all seems to confirm my theory.

Maciamo
16-12-07, 16:27
One more interesting article : Washington Post : Modern Man, Neanderthals Seen as Kindred Spirits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901101.html)


...
The two groups saw each other as kindred spirits and, when conditions were right, they mated.

How often this happened will never be known, but paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus says it probably occurred more often than is generally imagined.

In his latest work, published last week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Trinkaus, of Washington University in St. Louis, analyzed prehistoric fossil remains from various parts of Europe. He concluded that a significant number have attributes associated with both Neanderthals and the modern humans who replaced them.

"Given the data we now have, it would be highly improbable to argue there is no Neanderthal contribution to the early European population that came out of Africa," Trinkaus said. "I believe there was continuous breeding between the two for some period of time.
...
By the time the Neanderthals were dying about 30,000 years ago, the fossil record suggests that about 10 to 20 percent of the genetic material in European humans was from Neanderthals, he says.

Maciamo
07-03-08, 11:29
Evidence that Neanderthal could have survived well into modern times and could interbreed with Homo Sapiens

The Almas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almas_%28cryptozoology%29) is a cryptozoological species of presumed hominid reputed to inhabit the Caucasus and Pamir Mountains of central Asia. In other words, they could be relict hominids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relict_hominid), i.e. isolated descendents of ancient forms of humans, such as Neanderthal. Sometimes, these hominids are refered to as troglodytes.


Almas are typically described as human-like bipedal animals, between five and six and a half feet tall, their bodies covered with reddish-brown hair, with anthropomorphic facial features including a pronounced browridge, flat nose, and a weak chin.[1] Many cryptozoologist researchers have been struck by the similarity between these descriptions and modern reconstructions of how Neanderthals might have appeared.

One such hominid was captured in the wild in Abkhazia, Western Caucasus (now in Georgia) in the late 1800's. Her name was Zana (see article (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/zana.htm)). She was buried near the village of Tkhina, but her remains were not yet found by modern scientists to examine her skull and DNA. She, however, had a son with a

Accounts of people who had seen Zana describe her as having black or dark grey skin (maybe partially from dirt, as she was imprisoned in a cage like a wild animal) with reddish black hair. After 3 years in a cage, Zana had became tamer and was released. She was particularily athletic, fast at both running and swimming.

She gave birth several times to "half-breed" children (with local villagers), and four of them (born between 1878 and 1884) are known to have been taken away from her and raised by local families. Contrarily to her who had been raised in the wild, her children could speak and behave like normal men and women, in spite of some strange physical and mental features.

The two sons (Dzhanda and Kwhit) and two daughters (Kodzhanar and Gamasa) had children of their own, whose descendents still live in that region. Khwit and Gamasa were given the surname Sabekia.

Kwhit died in 1954. His skull was examined by scientists, and indeed shows clear evidence of strong Neanderthal features mixed with modern features.

It is interesting to note that Gamasa and Khwit were described as darked skinned and powerfully built, but otherwise lacking Zana's facial apperance. Some genes are dominant and other recessive. This is why a child born to a European and an East Asian parent will look much more East Asian than European. The same is true of a child half Black African, and half European. So if Neanderthal contribute to modern European genes, it is likely that millenia of interbreeding have mostly erased most of their physical characteristics, leaving only to modern Europeans some very slight Neanderthal features (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24164) not found among people elsewhere in the world.

British anthropologist Myra Shackley in "Still Living ?" describes Ivan Ivlov's 1963 observation of a whole family of Almas.

Maciamo
07-03-08, 15:40
Analysis of Neanderthal mtDNA (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ncscotts/mtDNA/Neanderthal%20mtDNA.pdf) revealed that several HVR mutations found in all Neanderthal samples so far are also found in the rare European haplogroups I, X and W (altogether accounting for 1 or 2% of the European mtDNA).

These haplogroups are phylogenetically related, and are quite different from all other haplogroups on Earth. Another particularity is their great geographic spread, even in very isolated regions (e.g. Sardinia, Norway), despite their very low frequency. This points at a very ancient diaspora, probably prior the Neolithic re-expansion at the end of the Ice Age. In fact, haplogroup X is found as far as North America, which proves that it had spread there before the end of the Ice Age.

The following mutations were found in all 7 Neanderthal mtDNA tested so far :
C16223T A16230G C16234T G16244A C16256A C16262T 16263.A T16311C

Among them, it is interesting to see that C16223T is found in haplogroups I, W and X. A16230G is a defining mutation of haplogroup X. T16311C defines a I subclade.

These mutations are also typical of Neanderthal (found in all but one sample) :

G16129A A16139T C16148T A16183. T16189C 16193.C T16209 C16278T A16299G C16320T T16362C

16183, 16189 and 16278 are defining mutations of haplogroup X, and 16193, 16223, 16230 are all found among subclades of haplogroup X. 16129 is a defining mutation of haplogroup I.

This is strong evidence that haplogroup X, and possibly also I and W are related to, if not directly descended from one subgroup of Neanderthal.

Neanderthal was wont and well adapted to cold climates. The warming up of the Earth after each Ice Age has probably pushed them to seek colder territory than Homo Sapiens. This would explain the spread of haplogroup X to typically cold regions like Northern Europe, Russia, the Caucasus, Siberia and Canada.

This would also explain why cases of relict hominids like Zana (above post) are always spotted in cold and remote regions, like the Caucasus, Russia, Norway or the Himalaya. If Homo Sapiens were/are better adapted than Neanderthals and replaced them and outnumbered and eventually absorbed them, it is normal that the last pockets of relatively pure Neanderthals to survive should be found in very remote and inhospitable regions of Eurasia, where only them were sufficiently adapted genetically to survive (although in very small groups).

Maciamo
22-09-08, 01:05
Human societies everywhere on Earth have lived for thousands of years with gender roles. In fact humans have separated tasks between men and women ever since the stone age. Men went hunting or warring while women were gathering, taking care of the children or sewing clothes from animal skins. Hormones influence the specialisation of the brain. This is why men and women think and feel differently. Gender role division runs deep into our genes.

Gender equality is something that appeared in Northern Europe. Medieval Norse societies were already much more egalitarian, socially and sexually, than any other part of Europe at the time. Even though women's rights activism has now spread through most of the Western world and has reached other countries since (e.g. China, thanks to communism), the only societies where women can really aspire to act and be treated like the equal of men are only found in Nordic countries.

Now what is interesting is that Neanderthals did not practice gender role division, like Homo Sapiens. Both men and women went hunting together. Some specialists have argued that could be why Homo Sapiens ultimately got an advantage over Neanderthals, as women had spare time to make clothes, build tools or make pottery vessels, becoming technologically superior to their distant cousins.

If gender roles are genetically determined in modern humans, how comes that out of all humans in the world some came to act differently, more like Neanderthals. Maybe a percentage of the Scandinavians have always behaved this way justly because they inherited the "gender equality" gene from Neanderthal. It does not mean at all that they are the modern Neanderthals, just that they inherited at least this gene. It only takes one accidental mating with a Neanderthal at one point to spread some of their genes through a Homo Sapiens population. If it is useful it is survive natural selection, even if only locally.

There is overwhelming evidence that modern humans inherited at least some genes from Neanderthal (see above). Maybe that it less than 0.1% of our genome, but it is there. Blue eyes and red hair could very well have come from Neanderthal too. Why not the gender equality gene ? I am not even arguing the existence of such a gene. It is evident from the archeological evidence about the difference of lifestyle between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal. It could not have been cultural. Some animals also have gene for gender equality (e.g. ducks), while others are genetically determined for role separation (e.g. lions).

Had gender equality been characteristic of many human societies on Earth for centuries, we could argue that the gene might have spread worldwide. However I think that this phenomenon is more limited to people of Scandinavian descent, who spread the gene through most of the Western world at varying levels with the Viking invasions. Gender equality is not so much cultural as genetic. Parts of Europe closely related to Scandinavia, be it the Baltic, the Netherlands or East England all have a higher tendency to gender equality. Conversely, the most genetically distant countries (Greece, Southern Italy) also have the most marked gender division.

Maciamo
23-09-08, 14:16
The main arguments against interbreeding between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals are :

1) modern humans do not look like Neanderthal, hence Neanderthal has become extinct.
=> FALSE : Neanderthal physical characteristics were just diluted, but survived in modern humans of the Caucasoid type.

If only one Neanderthal interbred with one Homo Sapiens at one time, the child's feature would appear to be just in between the two types, like the skeleton found in Portugal. If that child procreated with a full Homo Sapiens, the grandchild would be 1/4 Neanderthal, and would look clearly more Homo Sapiens. After 7 generations like this, the children would be 1/128 Neanderthal, meaning that they would already be almost undistinguishable from "pure" Homo Sapiens.

This experiment can be made with the main racial groups on Earth nowadays. A person with 127 Northern European ancestors and one Black African ancestor at the 7th generation may very well have blue eyes and blond hair, and look just as Northern European as someone with 128/128. Pure Neanderthals seem to have disppeared around 30,000 years ago, i.e. some 1,000 generations ago.

2) Modern Caucasoid people developed physical traits similar to Neanderthal independently.

It is doubtful that modern Europeans developed the exact same physical characteristics (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24164) as Neanderthal by chance. Were it only 2 or 3 characteristics, it might be plausible. But there are dozens of physical traits that distinguish Caucasoids from Mongoloids or Negroids, and Caucasoid types developed on same territory as where Neanderthals used to live (Europe + Middle East + North Africa).

In fact the proportion of Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens ancestors required for someone to look like a modern European could be calculated using morphing on a computers. I haven't done it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than 1/128, probably more something like 1/32 for modern humans with the stronger Neanderthal-like features. Comparison of the Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens genomes will give us a clearer answer (as long as we find the right subspecies of Neanderthal that interbred with Homo Sapiens).

3) Neanderthal mtDNA is very different from human mtDNA, so interbreeding did not happen.
=> FALSE : this is one of the stupidest argument I have read so far. First of all, Mitochondrial DNA is only transmitted by the mother. It is very possible that some haplogroups have disappeared with time, especially if they had pathogenic mutations. If Neanderthal mtDNA caused an evolutionary handicap compared to Homo Sapiens mtDNA, it would have been wiped out with a few hundreds or thousands years.

Take a family tree of cave person going back 5 generations. All of his 32 great-great-great-grand-parents are Homo Sapiens, except one Neanderthal woman. If the Neanderthal woman is not the ancestor in cognatic line (mother's mother's mother's...), then the child will not inherit Neanderthal mtDNA, although he/she will inherit other genes from Neanderthal. After 5 generations there is only one chance out of 16 to inherit that particular female ancestor's mtDNA. After 21 generations, there is only one chance out of 1 million. If that mtDNA is pathogenic, the chances are close to zero. Think about 1,000 generations that separate us from the "extinction" of pure Neanderthals.

Secondly, mtDNA evolves with time. Most of the haplogroups found in Europe nowadays did not exist 40,000 years ago, when Homo Sapiens reached Europe. If Neanderthal mtDNA had survived, it would have evolved just like Homo Sapiens mtDNA. If we found that mtDNA in someone, it would be quite difficult to recognise when compared to the few samples of Neanderthal bones (some over 100,000 years old !) tested. It could be that haplogroups such as X, W or I actually descend from Neanderthal, but have a high genetic distance to the bones tested because a) they do not belong to the same subspecies of Neanderthal, and b) they have evolved too much in 40,000 years.

4) The Neanderthal genome shows major differences with the Homo Sapiens genome.

This is to be expected. Neanderthal has evolved separately from Homo Sapiens for at least 500,000 years before they met again in Europe. Even if a small percentage of Neanderthal genes were inherited by modern humans, only the most evolutionary useful would have survived through natural selection. Therefore it is totally compatible to think that both types of hominids interbred but only a tiny percentage of Neanderthal genes (probably smaller than the actual proportion of Neanderthal ancestors in the "genealogy") were inherited.

Maciamo
11-11-08, 00:13
Another argument in favour of modern Europeans having inherited some Neanderthal genes is that Europeans have stronger and denser bones than Mongoloid people. One of the main characteristics of Neanderthals is their robustness and heavy built. Apart from the obviously heavier built of Caucasoids compared to Mongoloids, osteoporosis is also much more common among Mongoloid than Caucasoid people. Higher bone mineral density makes bones stronger and less susceptible to osteoporosis. Do Europeans owe that to some Neanderthal DNA ?

Vidar
03-02-09, 23:16
Firstly, id like to say good job and well done, i enjoyed this reading, and it presents a very possible perspective.

Secondly, i would like to contribute another source that might confirm this theory, this source is to be found in the religion of the early scandinavian people.

In general, Mythologies and early religions existed mainly to describe the things that could not be comprehended or explained at the time, that is why i believe that some confirmation to your claim that the scandinavian may in fact be some of the closest descendants to the Neanderthals, is within the early nordic mythology.

As all other mythologies of the time, there is a story describing the origin of the world and its inhabitants.
The Tale "Voluspa" Describes the creation of the world,
in the north lay the cold Niflheim, which consisted of tundras and frost, and in the south lay Muspelheim, a kingdom of fire and heat. Exactly as in the real world in the perspective of a person living in scandinavia.
Other than these kingdoms there was nothing but a cold empty chasm. Then came the first living creature, a Huge giant by the name "Ymer" and when he whent to sleep a jötunn son and a jötunn daughter grew from his armpit. The rest of his body contributed to creating the entire landscape, and also the "Gods".
From his hair came the woods. From his blood came the ocean. From his bones came the mountains. From his teeth came the sand and rocks.
Then his own creation Killed him when the gods, Odin, Vili and Vé, the Oldest gods of Nordic mythology turned against him.

I want to point out the Jötunn, are always described as a race that didnt live in Asgaard, but in Udgaard. As the gods lived in Asgaard. They are in all sources(prose Edda, poetic Edda, Voluspa, Heimskringla, Tyrfing and many others) described as stronger, bigger and more cunning than the normal humans who live in Midgaard.

The Voluspa Tale, ends with the destruction of the world.
The world will end with Ragnarok, a huge conflict in which all the beast in the world and the "Jötunns" will fight against the gods and the humans.
And according to the story, the humans will win, and start a new life in a new world.


What really makes gets me thinking here is this "Jötunn" people, i have never seen any mythology that empathizes so strongly on the different "tribes" of people. Normally, as in roman, greek, egyptian, zarathustra and others, there is One evil beast or person, or a handful. But never an entire Branch, living next to you.
Lets presume that these "Jötunns" where Neanderthals or close descendants of Neanderthals, they would look physically bigger and stronger, and with their slightly bigger brain capacity, we should presume that in some areas they would be smarter than the humans, maybe more cunning. If you didnt know why, you were so closesly related but yet so different with these strange humans that live a bit further down the river that you catch fist at, wouldnt that be something that you very strongly would want to have explained, for instance through religion?

Pressuming the forerunners to Nordic mythology was orally passed stories in families, that spread to tales and myths, untill they were written down in runes, which we dig up many years later.
What if scandinavian tribes intermingled with the Jötunns a long long time ago, even before the first nordic mythology sources, im not saying the entire scandinavian race is a cross bred of homo sapiens and Neanderthals but a lesser part might be.

Maciamo
06-02-09, 10:01
Welcome to the forum, Vidar. :)

I like your theory. The last Neanderthals could indeed have been the so-called Jötunns. Scandinavia also has stories about trolls, those ugly human-like creatures with big noses and low foreheads - in other words just like Neanderthals would appear to humans. They are said to live in isolated parts of the mountains in Norway, far from human society. This is what to be expected from any surviving Neanderthals, who could never live normally with humans.

It is possible nevertheless that humans did interbreed at some point with Neanderthals. There is strong evidence from various skeletons found with features in between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals.

This would explain the origin of red hair and maybe even blond hair and blue and/or green eyes in modern Europeans. DNA tests on Neanderthals the few testable remains are positive that they had red hair and fair eyes.

So why should red and blond hair and fair eyes be so much more common in Scandinavia, the land of trolls/Jötunns, than elsewhere if not because of Neanderthals ?

Many people claim that fair hair and eyes evolved naturally in northern Europe due to the low amount of light in winter. But that doesn't make much sense when we see that Siberians or Inuits have black hair and dark eyes despite having lived in Arctic latitudes for longer than Scandinavia has been settled by modern humans.

The ice cap over northern Europe only receded less than 10,000 years ago, and Scandinavia was probably not settled before 6,000 years ago. Inuits have lived in the Arctic for possibly 15,000 years, and Siberians for even longer (at least 20,000 years, when some of them crossed the frozen Bering Straight to America).

So why wouldn't they develop a mutation for lighter hair and eyes ? Well, human DNA is composed for billions of base pairs and the right mutations don't occur so often. 20,000 years is not so long in term of evolution. Neanderthals, on the other hand, had lived in Europe since 200,000 years ago until their extinction or blend out in modern Europeans. They lived through the various Ice Ages, which made them become more robust and better adapted to the cold than Homo Sapiens from Africa. Needless to say that they had some very useful mutations for the Homo Sapiens who first arrived in Europe. Breeding with Neanderthal would confer them better immunity, stronger bodies and lighter pigmentation to adapt to the winter light. Modern Siberians or Inuits are not as strongly built and light-haired/eyed as Europeans because they didn't interbreed with Neanderthals, who lived only in Europe.

Maciamo
18-02-09, 19:05
The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465002218/maciamojapan-20/104-6066459-7917524), by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending.

Here is new best-seller that summarises very eloquently the various arguments developed on this forum about the advantageous genetic component that introgressed from Neanderthals into the gene pool of modern humans.

The whole of Chapter 2 (40 pages) is dedicated to the matter. I have to say that the arguments and examples in the book are even more compelling that anything I had read or written before.

On the other hand, about half of the arguments developed here are absent from the book. I suppose it is normal as some of them are entirely mine (I haven't seen them mentioned anywhere else).

For example, the idea that there were many subspecies of Neanderthals (meaning that the Neanderthal genome project might not be testing the actual subspecies that interbred with Cro-Magnon), or that their mtDNA might have evolved so much that, if it survived to this day, it would be unrecognisable from that of 40,000 year-old bones.

I also think that light pigmentation for hair, eyes and skin all originated in Neanderthals, who had been living in northern latitudes for over 200,000 years when Homo Sapiens moved out of Africa. Introgression would have provided a quick adaptive advantage to the low sunlight in winter - a vital element to avoid vitamin D deficiency and neurological problems.

Neanderthal genes probably spread on most of the globe (with the possible exception of Australian aborigines), but are probably found in higher percentage among Europeans because some traits just weren't useful elsewhere. Siberians and East Asians would have inherited fair skin, but not fair eyes and hair, because only the former was really advantageous in their environment, or because fair eyes and hair were not considered beautiful in their cultures.

JackMack
26-05-09, 21:50
I have read further studies mentioning that at first (until about 40,000 years ago), Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons had the same tools, technology and lifestyle. Both buried their deaths, with similar ornaments. The Cro-Magnons then developed new tools, which were either copied or developed independently later by Neanderthals. As a matter of intelligence, both seem to be equivalent. Skeletons of hybrids of the two species dating from 25,000 years ago, around the time of the disapperance of Neanderthals, may indicate that their disappearance was indeed due to a genetic absorbtion by the increasingly numerous Cro-Magnons. This latter would have outnumbered Neanderthals due to to the cooling of the climate and the fact that Neanderthals always lived more North, in colder regions with less food, while Cro-Magnon could migrate south more easily via the Middle East to Africa, then come back more numerous when climate warmed up again. There have been signs of trade between the two species, which show that they had amicable contacts, and could very well of interbred with each others.

Furthermore, we see around 15-20,000 years ago, just after the hypothetical merger of the 2 species, the appearance of mural paintings in caves. This phenomemon is strictly limited to Western Europe. Why would such paintings have been done by European Cro-Magnon only, and not other Cro-Magnon (=Homo Sapiens) around the world ? I believe that this could be due to the racial convergence with Neanderthal, because Neanderthal had a more developed occipital lobe, and thus a better vision and visual memory, resulting in an earlier development of visual arts. This also explains the difference in skull shape, especially the more elongated occipital lobe, between Caucasoids and other humans, esp. compared to Mongoloids.

Some French and American researchers also found convincing evidence of an direct evolution from the Asian Homo Erectus toward the modern Asian Homo Sapiens, probably after interbreeding with a new arrival of Homo Sapiens from the Middle East.

I think you're right. Possibly being European means being a mixture of Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal....and Asian as Homo Erectus. I've read many articles on this topic.

Tully
05-06-09, 03:32
Lets hope that more DNA testing of these Cro-Magnon & Neanderthal remains turns up longer more sequences of DNA. The tying in (maybe) of these older Humans would be one of the most amazing evolutionary discoveries. The present evidence seems to hint at tantilizing closeness of Neanderthals, Magnons & Sapiens.

JackMack
05-06-09, 16:34
Lets hope that more DNA testing of these Cro-Magnon & Neanderthal remains turns up longer more sequences of DNA. The tying in (maybe) of these older Humans would be one of the most amazing evolutionary discoveries. The present evidence seems to hint at tantilizing closeness of Neanderthals, Magnons & Sapiens.

Neanderthal- Cro Magnon hybrids have already been discovered- I believe one was from a site in Spain. I think that hybridization is now being accepted among the scientific community. Any thoughts on this?

Ua'Ronain
05-06-09, 23:46
Neanderthal- Cro Magnon hybrids have already been discovered- I believe one was from a site in Spain. I think that hybridization is now being accepted among the scientific community. Any thoughts on this?

Dont tell that to my anthropology professors (they refuse to believe it):rolleyes2: I also am in the beliefe that there must be a connection between us modern sapiens to magnons and neanderthals.

Cambrius (The Red)
27-06-09, 05:03
I would place much trust in what Coon said. Many of his theories were just plain inaccurate. Especially farcical were his eye and hair color maps.

Cambrius (The Red)
27-06-09, 05:04
Correction of previous post: "I would [not] place much trust..."

Cambrius (The Red)
27-06-09, 05:05
I agree. There is growing evidence that Neanderthals and Cro-Magons mated.

Maciamo
03-07-09, 10:31
Here a distribution map of the 3 main Neanderthal subspecies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090415075150.htm).

Cambrius (The Red)
04-07-09, 22:23
Carleton Coon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_Stevens_Coon) supports the theory that modern Europeans are of dual origins, consisting of Upper Paleolithic (mixture of Sapiens and Neanderthals) types and Mediterranean (purely Sapiens) types.

In his s book The Races of Europe (http://www.snpa.nordish.net/racesofeurope.htm), studying the population of Fehmarn Island, at the border of Germany and Denmark, he says :

The dual origins notion is about the only reasonable contribution Coon made to evolutionary / physical anthropology. The man was wrong on just about everything else... A nut-job.

Cambrius (The Red)
04-07-09, 22:25
Recent studies by scientists in Barcelona suggest that the gene for red hair may well have come from a Neanderthal refuge in Iberia.

Barros Serrano
08-07-09, 04:15
First, I believe that C. Coon was thrown out of the AAA for being a racist. He believed that the cold climate made white people smarter, that the tropics made black people lazy and stupid.

The Neandertal genome has been sequenced. It is COMPLETELY different from that of Homo sapiens, including the European varieties. The red hair gene in Homo neandertalensis was not the same as the mutation which causes ginger hair in H. sapiens. The olive skin tone of Mediterraneans/Mideasterners is quite ancient. The lighter skin accompanied by blonde hair of many Europeans is dated to around 6000 years ago, apparently among the Indoeuropeans.

DNA analysis indicates the last common ancestor of H. neandertalensis and H. sapiens to have been at least 600,000 years ago. The genetic evidence speaks very clearly to say that Homo sapiens does not have H. neandertalensis genes in Europe or Mideast or Central Asia, does not have H. heidelbergensis genes in Africa or southern Asia, and does not have H. erectus genes in eastern and southeastern Asia.

Now, there is the morphological evidence... fossils found in Europe which seem to be hybrids. And well they may have been. But either the hybrids were sterile, or so few in number that their genes have disappeared over the many intervening generations, due to natural selection or just random genetic drift.

IF there is in fact neandertalensis ancestry for any living person, it is very little, miniscule in total for all the Euro-Mideast-Central Asian peoples living on former Neandertal turf.

For some it is romantic to imagine Neandertal ancestors. For some Afrocentrics, the belief in Neandertal ancestry among Europeans is cause to proclaim the inferiority of "white" people. But the facts don't support any of it.

Now, there are anthropologists still bucking the tide, who believe in multiregionalism as opposed to pure Out-of-Africa to explain the diversity of modern humans, including Wolpoff, Trinkhaus and some others. Their arguments are respectable, and their disagreements with the mainstream are very useful and productive to keep the science honest, and keep us open to the possibility of new discoveries which will sway the argument their way. But currently, the prevailing belief is that neandertalensis was not the ancestor of any living humans.

Maciamo
09-07-09, 09:39
The Neandertal genome has been sequenced. It is COMPLETELY different from that of Homo sapiens, including the European varieties.

The genome of ONE Neanderthal has been sequenced, and I think that the sequence isn't even complete yet. Let's keep in mind that the very first complete human genome was only completed in 2007, and Neanderthal DNA was quite damaged and much harder to process.

The part of the Neanderthal genome tested so far is 99.5% similar to the genome of a modern human. This is far from being "completely different" considering that the lowest similarity between two modern humans appears at present to be 99.7%.

The variety of Neanderthal sequenced is one of the southern European subspecies. It is still unknown how much genetic diversity there was between various subspecies of Neanderthals, but judging from the 600,000 years of evolution and the clear physical differences between the 3 main subspecies (bigger differences than between modern humans), it is probable that Neanderthals had a higher genetic diversity than modern humans. Furthermore, if modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, it would make sense that this happened in Central Asia, where red hair and other features shared with Neanderthals first appeared. There is no genetic data from Central Asian Neanderthal yet.

Barros Serrano
09-07-09, 21:04
Yes... in general, though advances are constantly forthcoming, we are still in a period of the infancy of genome analysis. Genes which act as "switches" to turn on other genes, and other complications keep arising to confound the conclusions reached with the earliest studies. We can expect this knowledge and expertise to increase exponentially over the coming years.

The % differences don't mean a whole lot, since we are fairly similar to even chimps, the way of calculating these differences can vary so that you get different %s from different scientists, but they don't mean much. The 95-plus% similarity of Homo sapiens with any related type doesn't tell us a thing, really.

What matters is if they can find some identifiable neandertal gene in moderns, which has not yet occurred.

But... we should all keep on raising objections on both sides, because we are all raising valid points which must be addressed in order to resolve this.

Currently my position has altered from "Out-of-Africa ONLY" to a slight modification, that we are all overwhelmingly descended from Out-of-Africa, but some mixing probably did occur, most of its genetic results disappearing via natural selection or drift, but with the possibility that there may still be an allele or 2 floating around in modern peoples which can be traced to erectus, heidelbergensis or neandertalensis. Of course my training was mostly in socio-cultural rather than physical anthro., so what do I know?

The evidence consistently produced by Trinkhaus, et al., is mostly morphological, so we are getting 1 conclusion from the DNA but valid objections to it from the morphological analyses...

I'm like an addict needing a fix, waiting eagerly for more data to appear...

Maciamo
10-07-09, 10:30
What matters is if they can find some identifiable neandertal gene in moderns, which has not yet occurred.


If you look at it the other way round, you could just as well say that we have not yet found a single gene in common between modern humans and Paleolithic Homo Sapiens (e.g. Cro-Magnon), apart from one tiny Cro-Magnon mtDNA sequence. The reason is that no Paleolithic Homo Sapiens has been tested yet. That doesn't prove or disprove anything. We just don't know yet.

I wouldn't be surprised to find quite a few differences between Cro-Magnon and modern Europeans/Near Easterners. Have you read The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465002218?ie=UTF8&tag=maciamojapan-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0465002218) ? The authors demonstrate that modern humans have drastically changed genetically since the birth of agriculture. For example there was a strong selection for new mutations that lowered blood sugar since we became cereal eaters, so as to avoid diabetes. This is why Native American or Polynesian tribes that never became agricultural before Columbus suffer a lot from diabetes in modern societies. There are many more examples, including changes in cranial features (e.g. quick disappearance of brow ridges since the Antiquity).

Cambrius (The Red)
13-07-09, 15:53
Here a distribution map of the 3 main Neanderthal subspecies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090415075150.htm).

The Neanderthal image depicted shows more physical similarities than differences, compared with modern man.

Barros Serrano
15-07-09, 01:23
Still... the Cro-Magnon genome is Homo sapiens, without a doubt. The neandertal one, no. What will be found, if anything, to show neandertal ancestry of modern humans, will be some isolated allele or 2, nothing basic or indicating more than a very small bit of neandertal ancestry.

Nowadays it is being discovered just how advanced neandertals were culturally... musical instruments, sewn clothing, funerals, etc., and the Upper Palaeolithic Châtelperronian tool complex is now proven to have been made by neandertals without sapiens influence. So... they were not dumb hulking brutes...

Of course we may find evidence that Homo erectus was also a lot more "human" than is now thought...

Cambrius (The Red)
15-07-09, 15:57
Eventually enough hard evidence will be accumulated that provides sufficient proof of Cro-Magnon / Neanderthal mixing.

LeBrok
18-11-09, 08:31
Great thread Maciamo, I had a nice read this evening. Glad to find guys thinking alike in this matter. Although I think you are pushing the envelope a bit too much sometimes, with legends and red hair yeti.

I also enjoyed sobering remarks of Barros. The truth will be probably somewhere in the middle even if we don't like it, lol.

I always shake my head when I read scientific material with scholars arguing about neanderthals demise. Wars with Cro-Magnon? Interbreeding? Climate? Disease?
Let me see. It was almost exactly like Europeans discovered North America and settled there. Wars, on and off for centuries. Peaceful coexistence, in places yes. Interbreeding, not a lot percentage wise, but enough to pick up useful genes, and is ongoing since Pocahontas. And if not for the change of thinking about races,human rights, welfare services, etc, the last native American would vanish probably in next 200 years.
That's most likely what happened with Neanderthals.


Here is one my, push the envelope type, theory about sharing some of Neanderthals' genes.
Europeans are the list religious, spiritual, superstitious people of all the races. Also when one looks at burial practices of Neanderthals and Cro Magnons, it looks like Neanderthals were lacking somewhat in spiritual department. Did Europeans pick up none-believer gene from them too?
Interestingly the farther north in Europe one goes the less spiritual people seam to be.

Regards

Cambrius (The Red)
18-11-09, 19:25
The debate I'm certain will accelerate...

Nicolas Peucelle
16-12-09, 01:43
about hair and skin now :
red hair legacy due to neanderthal populations :

I only found infos confirming (till furhter notice) that the gene responsible for red hair found in a neanderthal sample (of only 1 individual) is a variety which is not existing as such in any today human. It is believed to represent another version producing the same visible results. Beside this measured fact (Max Plank Institute report) the question is still open how it is possible that 80 other versions of the "red hair" provoking gene exist in today living humans when it should be considered that all of them arrived maximum 40.000 years ago in a climatic region where red hair and light colored skin can not be a terrible handicap any more and even be an advantage as it used to be the case for the neanderthal population. Beside that in africa the "red hair gene" did not develope prior neither, so there is a "problem" to solve concerning the "speedy" developement of so many "red hair producing" genes in supposed to be less than 40.000 years and this only in europe...:thinking:

Nicolas Peucelle
16-12-09, 01:57
I may suggest that the neanderthal may have died out because the interbreeding may have just produced mixed species individuals like a "mule" would be a hybrid descendant of a horse and a donkey mixing up. (and mules are sterile). In this case the children would never have viable descendants at all and each couple formed by a Homo Sapiens-Sapiens and a Neanderthal would be the genetical end of these 2 individuals. This would explain the existence (to be still proved by more than anatomic aspects, but also by DNA checking) of skeletons presenting themselves as half-neanderthals. (a child skeleton discovered in a portugese cave p.ex.) The existence of such a hybrid descendant will not automaticaly prove that a second generation of such half neanderthals could be procreated by that hybrid. It s possible that Homo Sapiens Sapiens males or females "occupying" a partner of the other kind.. would in fact sterilize him this way. Also we can consider a second option: That the procreation of viable descendants was only possible if the male was Homo Sapiens Sapiens and the female a neanderthal.. or the opposite way (only neanderthal males could have a viable descendant with a Homo Sapiens sapiens female)... and this last version could also explain than that apparently NOTHING of the specific neanderthal mtDNA is present in todays human mtDNA but a large chunk of neanderthal DNA would still exist in modern humans despite this total absence of mother transmitted mtDNA. (Now I wonder what the Ydna of the neandethal males is like.. has anybody yet a code of it? I don't think so). Consider that approx 450.000 years separated the neanderthal line from the lineage of the modern human and this may very well have been enough to create a genetical incompatibility explaining what I suggest here before. Beside this supposition I still add that it is also quite humanly possible that when the 2 populations met the fact that the 2 human kinds were not able to have descendants together would not exclude that they could have formed sex and lust or loving "couples" or taken (seduced or kidnapped) wives of the other group. Ignoring that no children will result of these "unions", the neanderthal female may still have been attractive to Homo Sapiens Sapiens males, and by remaining with their H.S.S.tribes neanderthal females were missing in the neanderthal group, creating a slow diminuishing of neanderthal female population over the few thousands of years, what may have let the neanderthal population to a "quiet" extinction by the means of "women stealing or seducing" and other "natural disasters", more than by murder of the entire neanderthal population over the time. And how can we exclude that an average neanderthal female did not prefer to join a "cool" Homo sapiens sapiens group anyhow? In case she would never be pregnant there, this could have been an advantage for her personal comfort. Maybe it was a great deal for the old H.Sapiens Sapiens tribes to have a couple or even bunches of these neanderthal females which never had to bear children and could spend more time helping the other mothers doing work arround the settlements. In this way the neanderthal female would have been a kind of servants, maybe sex slave race which the H.Sapiens sapiens males kidnapped or exchanged from their neanderthal counterparts. (Humans are probably very much alike as we are today.. and the idea to procure females through trade is very possible). Maybe the neanderthal males ended up as "pimps" of their own female population, trading them away for better tools and objetcs which the H.S.S. tribes were able to create better. Unfortunately beside the genetical checks which do not confirm (yet) any neanderthal DNA present in modern living humans, there seems to be not evidence (yet) neither of "mixed" settlements.. because we should expect to find at least a grave or mixed remains of the the two human kinds in a contemporary archeological layer and site. So were they so much disgusted by each other that they even not shared a cave or a burial site after having formed couples or sexual groups ? The future will tell us hopefully with good evidence, either way.

Neander
06-01-10, 04:32
Hello to all

I believe strongly in neanderthal origins of europeans. Another fact is that we find brachycephal neanderthals exactly where today live dinaric people (Brachycephal); the only brachycephalic neanderthals are those of Crapina and Vindija caves in Croatia.

Others were dolichocephalic, as are the people of the same places today.

And I should like to know your opinion about linking of neanderthals with certain haplogroups.

I think haplogroups C D and E (without african subclade), are linked to neanderthals.

Because, the haplogroup D is linked to chinesse paleolithics who were caucasians as are today their descendants Ainu people, who are also with haplogroup D.

Haplogroup C before migrating to North America and Australia, lived in the East Asia (Siberia, China, India, Indochina etj).

And haplogroup E, which is a brother of haplogroup D, could have lived in Europe.

Three centers of Blood Group A, are Europe, Australia and North America. The two last are with high frequency of haplogroup C. Europe could have been with haplogroup E in that time.

After the arrival of Sapiens, Neanderthals would have been refugees to forests of Balkan and Iberia. In Balkan still today remain the haplogroup E-V13, and in Iberia we find the last Neanderthals together with hybrid in Portugalia.

After that, Neanderthals could migrate to North Africa, where we can find Berbers with haplogroup E-M78, which have a high frequency of Blonde hairs and fair eyes.

Maciamo
06-01-10, 11:15
Hello to all

I believe strongly in neanderthal origins of europeans. Another fact is that we find brachycephal neanderthals exactly where today live dinaric people (Brachycephal); the only brachycephalic neanderthals are those of Crapina and Vindija caves in Croatia.

Others were dolichocephalic, as are the people of the same places today.

That's a very good point. :good_job: Considering the complex geographic carving of the European continent the probabilities that this is just a coincidence are very low indeed.



And I should like to know your opinion about linking of neanderthals with certain haplogroups.

I think haplogroups C D and E (without african subclade), are linked to neanderthals.

Neanderthalian haplogroups would have diverged from Homo Sapiens ones well before haplogroup A. Haplogroups C and D represent the first migrations of modern humans from Africa to Asia. I am convinced that these people mixed with the local descendants of Homo Erectus. There were at least two subspecies of Homo Erectus in Asia at the time, the one related to the Peking Man, and the one descended from the Java Man. The former mixed with both hg C and D to make Mongoloid people in East Asia. The latter intermingled with hg C (mostly) in modern Indonesia and Papua-New Guinea, then moved to Australia. Aboriginal Australians are their "purest descendants, followed by Papuans. But Indonesians certainly have a small amount of admixture too, even though it was mostly repopulated by East Asians.

Haplogroup E is typically African, so it's one of the least likely to have mixed with Neanderthals. The most likely are IJ and K.



Because, the haplogroup D is linked to chinesse paleolithics who were caucasians as are today their descendants Ainu people, who are also with haplogroup D.

Chinese Paleolithic people weren't Caucasian. The Ainu aren't Caucasian either, despite being hairier and having rounder eyes than typical Mongoloids.




Three centers of Blood Group A, are Europe, Australia and North America. The two last are with high frequency of haplogroup C. Europe could have been with haplogroup E in that time.

I wouldn't try to link blood group with ethnicity. Chimps and gorillas have the same ABO blood groups as humans, so that is a very old genetic feature. Modern Native Americans are almost all O+, but it has been proven that pre-Columbian Natives had a lot of A and B too. The theory is that group O was better adapted to cope with the diseases brought by the Europeans (such as syphilis). Likewise the distribution of blood groups in Eurasia can be explained by various epidemics in the last 2000 years. I have explained this in ABO blood type and resistance to diseases (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25371)




After the arrival of Sapiens, Neanderthals would have been refugees to forests of Balkan and Iberia. In Balkan still today remain the haplogroup E-V13, and in Iberia we find the last Neanderthals together with hybrid in Portugalia.

After that, Neanderthals could migrate to North Africa, where we can find Berbers with haplogroup E-M78, which have a high frequency of Blonde hairs and fair eyes.

Neanderthal blood would have passed through y-haplogroup I. I2a2 being strong in the Balkans, this is where you should look. E-V13 replaced a lot of older I lineages in the southern Balkans, but did marry with native women of haplogroup U4, U5, H1, H3, etc. The same is true in North Africa. All native men of European descent have been killed or made not to pass their Y-DNA, but over half of maternal lineages in northern Morocco and north-west Algeria are of European descent. Neanderthal genes can pass just as well through mothers as fathers. Y-DNA is only one side of the story.

Neander
06-01-10, 15:16
Thanx for answers. :)

And one question for you (or others), about haplogroups:

Is it possible, that some haplogroups (Y or mtdna) are not with same ancestry, but just share dhe same mutation, which is created as a coincidence in two populations??

If it is possible, maybe we can find neanderthal haplogroups.

Maciamo
06-01-10, 16:15
Thanx for answers. :)

And one question for you (or others), about haplogroups:

Is it possible, that some haplogroups (Y or mtdna) are not with same ancestry, but just share dhe same mutation, which is created as a coincidence in two populations??

If it is possible, maybe we can find neanderthal haplogroups.

A haplogroup is not defined by one or a few mutations, but a long series of cumulative mutations. This is why coincidences don't happen, except maybe for two subclades of the same mtDNA haplogroup defined only by one common mutation.

Neander
04-02-10, 19:39
http://atlantisinireland.com/DNA/Europeernas_DNA.php

Here is distribution of Mtdna and Y haplogroups.

Notice Mtdna haplogroups I X and W, and their distribution, and What you think??

Maciamo
05-02-10, 10:40
Have you seen the Y-DNA (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml) and mtDNA frequencies (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml) on this website ? At least it is complete for Europe, unlike the website you are referring to.

I, W and X probably all originated around the Caucasus (I, X) and the Pontic steppe and forest-steppe (W).

Maciamo
06-05-10, 21:55
The naysayers are going to have a hard time denying all the new evidence in favour of a genetic assimilation of Neanderthals by Homo Sapiens.

BBC News : Neanderthal genes 'survive in us' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm)


Many people alive today possess some Neanderthal ancestry, according to a landmark scientific study.

The finding has surprised many experts, as previous genetic evidence suggested the Neanderthals made little or no contribution to our inheritance.

The result comes from analysis of the Neanderthal genome - the "instruction manual" describing how these ancient humans were put together.

The genomes of 1% to 4% of people in Eurasia come from Neanderthals.

...

The sequencing of the Neanderthal genome is a landmark scientific achievement, the product of a four-year-long effort led from Germany's Max Planck Institute but involving many other universities around the world.

The project makes use of efficient "high-throughput" technology which allows many genetic sequences to be processed at the same time.

The draft Neanderthal sequence contains DNA extracted from the bones of three different Neanderthals found at Vindija Cave in Croatia.

^ lynx ^
07-05-10, 01:39
click (http://www.elpais.com/videos/sociedad/mezclaron/humanos/modernos/neandertales/elpvidsoc/20100506elpepusoc_4/Ves/)

^^ In this video from El Pais we can see how neanderthals mixed with modern humans.

Cambrius (The Red)
08-05-10, 17:01
The latest DNA research concludes that Europeans and Asians have between 1-4% Neanderthal genetic influences. The only populations without any Neanderthal DNA are from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Michael Folkesson
08-05-10, 17:08
This is a question I've been pondering about for many years. As far as I can tell, the Neanderthals were light and blue eyed. Some dispute that. I don't know. If that however is the case, it seems as if the region of distribution of Neanderthals concur roughly with the area where light humans are distributed i.e. caucasians. My thought was that we might have gotten the fairness and blue eyes from mixing with them. That they didn't disappear or where exterminated but that they are us. Mixed and integrated over time.

Hardly scientific, but something that I thought about for a long time. It probably has no merit at all. Subjects like this are probably rarely as simple as that.

Haganus
08-05-10, 21:27
Very interesting to read that Eurepeans and Asians have 1-4% Neanderthaler
ancestry.

But did the Asiatic Neanderthaleres have fair/red hair and blue eyes?
I supposed that Neanderthalers only lived in Western-Europe.
Why were these fair hair and blue so numerous with the North- and
West-Europeans? Perhaps there was an other cause which stimalated
blond hair and light eyes for the West-Europeans?

Cambrius (The Red)
09-05-10, 01:27
Light eyes and hair are indigenous throughout Europe. The north has higher percentages of light hair and eyes primarily because of environmental adaptation. Actually, in the mountainous areas of Morocco, descendants of non-mixed Eurasian (White) origin Berbers show ~ 40% light eyes.

Maciamo
09-05-10, 10:16
This is a question I've been pondering about for many years. As far as I can tell, the Neanderthals were light and blue eyed. Some dispute that. I don't know. If that however is the case, it seems as if the region of distribution of Neanderthals concur roughly with the area where light humans are distributed i.e. caucasians. My thought was that we might have gotten the fairness and blue eyes from mixing with them. That they didn't disappear or where exterminated but that they are us. Mixed and integrated over time.

Hardly scientific, but something that I thought about for a long time. It probably has no merit at all. Subjects like this are probably rarely as simple as that.

That's what I also hypothesised here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24894) and here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24164).

Central Asia appears to be the most likely place for Homo Sapiens-Neanderthal intermingling. Blond and red hair as well as blue eyes might well have come to Europe with the Indo-Europeans from the Eurasian plain. I think it is very probable that modern humans got fair skin, hair and eyes from Neanderthal in Central Asia around 45,000 years ago. These new hybrid modern humans would have belonged to Y-haplogroup K, who has spawned haplogroups L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S and T.

L and T moved back to South and South-West Asia (T as far as North-East Africa). M and S went all the way to Australia and Papua. N moved north to Siberia, O east to East Asia. P, Q and R remained in Central Asia for many millennia, then Q moved to north-east Siberia and the Americas around 20,000 years ago. R1 and R2 developed in Central Asia. R2 moved to northern India and Pakistan. R1 split into R1a and R1b. R1a remained all over Central Asia, with a branch in the Pontic steppe. R1b moved to northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia, the rejoined the western R1a branch across the Caucasus. Their fusion gave birth to Indo-European culture and people, then expanded into Europe and back to Central and South Asia.

That's a very brief and schematic summary of how Neanderthal genes spread all over Eurasia.

As for why fair hair and eyes are not found among the first branches to depart from Central Asia (N, O and Q), there are several possibilities.

1) N, O and Q people mixed early with another human population and lost the fair hair and eyes gene before expanding. My guess is that they mixed with another hybrid, of Homo Sapiens and the descendants of the Peking Man, which gave the Mongoloid features to East Asians, Siberians and Native Americans. These older Homo Sapiens in East Asia belonged to Y-haplogroup C and D. N, O and Q might have replaced them as paternal lineages for any of the reasons that R1a and R1b replaced older Y-lineages in Europe (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b-conquest). I am increasingly in favour of a genetic predisposition for these haplogroups to father more boys (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25816).

2) The fair hair and eyes mutations were not present in the people who migrated north and east from Central Asia. It was only inherited by another tribe, who later became the R people.

3) The fair hair and eyes mutation did not come from Neanderthal but was a later independent happening.

Maciamo
09-05-10, 11:03
Light eyes and hair are indigenous throughout Europe. The north has higher percentages of light hair and eyes primarily because of environmental adaptation. Actually, in the mountainous areas of Morocco, descendants of non-mixed Eurasian (White) origin Berbers show ~ 40% light eyes.

Haplogroup R1b has been found among the Berbers. It's possible that the Vandals who settled in the Maghreb mixed with the Berbers after being defeated.

Cambrius (The Red)
09-05-10, 16:10
Haplogroup R1b has been found among the Berbers. It's possible that the Vandals who settled in the Maghreb mixed with the Berbers after being defeated.

How do explain old accounts provided by Spanish and Portuguese maritime explorers describing a good number of Gaunches (Canary Island Berbers) as having light hair and eyes? The Gaunches were isolated and did not have any contact with Vandals.

Maciamo
09-05-10, 16:28
How do explain old accounts provided by Spanish and Portuguese maritime explorers describing a good number of Gaunches (Canary Island Berbers) as having light hair and eyes? The Gaunches were isolated and did not have any contact with Vandals.

It's not because there is no documented evidence of the Vandals in the Canaries that they or their descendants didn't settle there.

Haganus
09-05-10, 22:57
Interesting to read that blond/red fair and blue eyes of the Nordic Race
had an Neanderthaler origin. Is there difference between red and fair hair?
Are the Neanderthalers responsible for ashblond hair of the East-Baltics
in East-Europe?

I understand that the intermingling with homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthalers happened in Central Asia. Perhaps the blue eyes and
fair of some Arabs and a lot of the Berbers also has a Neanderthaler origin.

Remarkable that the equality of men and women in North-Europe had
a Neanderthaler origin. I read that the psychological deviation of autism originated from the Neanderthalers. So I think that in Sweden and Norway there are much more autistic persons than in other parts of Europe.

Cambrius (The Red)
10-05-10, 03:13
Interesting to read that blond/red fair and blue eyes of the Nordic Race
had an Neanderthaler origin. Is there difference between red and fair hair?
Are the Neanderthalers responsible for ashblond hair of the East-Baltics
in East-Europe?

I understand that the intermingling with homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthalers happened in Central Asia. Perhaps the blue eyes and
fair of some Arabs and a lot of the Berbers also has a Neanderthaler origin.

Remarkable that the equality of men and women in North-Europe had
a Neanderthaler origin. I read that the psychological deviation of autism originated from the Neanderthalers. So I think that in Sweden and Norway there are much more autistic persons than in other parts of Europe.

Fair hair runs from light brown to light blond. Red is intermediary between blond and brown.

Maciamo
10-05-10, 08:37
Neanderthals are also thought to have contributed (http://www.pnas.org/content/103/48/18178.abstract) to the variant of microcephalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephalin) responsible for bigger brains. This variant is found in most of the population of Eurasia (http://mindblog.dericbownds.net/2006/12/challenging-link-between-human_29.html) nowadays, but is rare in Africa. Its presence in Africa would be attributable to back migrations such as the one of R1b1*, J1 and T (possibly also via E1b1 after mixing with T around Ethiopia).

Cambrius (The Red)
10-05-10, 16:18
It's not because there is no documented evidence of the Vandals in the Canaries that they or their descendants didn't settle there.

It should be said that depictions of Berbers by ancient Greeks, Romans and others show a good percentage of individuals with fair hair and eyes. Obviously, these were produced prior to the Vandal invasion of North Africa.

Wilhelm
10-05-10, 17:18
How do explain old accounts provided by Spanish and Portuguese maritime explorers describing a good number of Gaunches (Canary Island Berbers) as having light hair and eyes? The Gaunches were isolated and did not have any contact with Vandals.
Not only european explorers, but also arabs described them as fair haired,the arab geographer Muhammad al-Idrisi wrote a book in which he said :
""a village whose inhabitants were often fair hair with long and flaxen hair and the women of a rare beauty".

Cambrius (The Red)
10-05-10, 17:31
Not only european explorers, but also arabs described them as fair haired,the arab geographer Muhammad al-Idrisi wrote a book in which he said :
""a village whose inhabitants were often fair hair with long and flaxen hair and the women of a rare beauty".

Light hair and eyes among Eurasian Berbers were / are mainly indigenous. Given the great advances in the genetic and archaeological sciences, the racial and ethnic truths about numerous human populations will soon be very clear.

Eochaidh
10-05-10, 20:12
Thor Heyerdahl, of Kon Tiki fame, based his theory of reed raft travel from Africa to the Americas, partly on the Guanches of the Canary Islands. This is what led him to sail from the Canaries to the Caribbean on a reed raft during his "Ra Expedition'.

He reasoned that if the Guanches could have gotten to the Canaries as early as he believed, they could also have followed the prevailing currant on the the Americas.

He was a great believer in the seas being highways, not barriers, during the Neolithic Period.

Eochaidh
06-07-10, 19:11
Here is an article from Discovery News about some interesting adaptations of Neanderthals.



Neanderthal males had ‘Popeye’-like arms

Arm bone remains show Neanderthals were unusually pumped up on male hormones

Remains of an early Neanderthal with a super strong arm suggest that Neanderthal fellows were heavily pumped up on male hormones, possessing a hormonal status unlike anything that exists in humans today, according to a recent paper.

Neanderthal males probably evolved their ultra macho ways due to lifestyle, genes, climate and diet factors, suggests the study, published in the journal Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia.

Project leader Maria Mednikova told Discovery News that Neanderthal males hunted in the "extreme," helping to beef up one arm.

Full article is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38105813/ns/technology_and_science-science/

bladesama
11-03-11, 15:34
first off, blonde hair, blue eyes, white skin, its unique, and a trait which was attributed to neaderthals also... now we all know about how many thousands of years humans were in europe, and they have been said to of taken on these traits in what.. 40 thousand years??... when humans left africa, they would of been black / brown, whateva you wanted to call it, now i know weather, diet etc can affect all these attributes.. but take aboriginals for example, they have been in australia for over 65 thousand years, isolated, and even extended right down to victoria and tasmania, and in winter it is always cold and gets snow etc... aboriginals were in tasmania for around 35 thousand years, yet they remained, with black hair , brown eyes, dark skin, there was not much variance between aboriginals of tasmania and victoria, as opposed to those in the north, anhem land etc.

In 2005, scientists discovered a tiny mutation in a gene that plays a key role in determining skin color, with Caucasians inheriting a different version than other groups. The gene—named slc245a5—was discovered in a cancer research study using zebrafish, which have the same gene and come in dark and light skin versions. Slc245a is believed to be responsible for between 25 and 38 percent of the color variation between Europeans and Africans.Researchers found that people in Africa and China have one variation of slc245a5 and people of European ancestry have another.

red hair is apparently a genetic mutation, a reccesive mutation, you could have 8 generations of black hair, and the red hair could still come about in the 9th. red haired people are described as firely, crazy, more energetic, A 2002 study found that redhead are harder to sedate than any other people requiring twenty percent more anesthesia. Inadequate doses cause people to wake up during surgery and have increased recall of procedures. europeans are generally very stocky, they are built big, even a person at 5foot can be quite heavily built, some europeans have brown hair, or black hair, but still have a tinge of red in there also.

also, if europeans mixed with neanderthals and as a result, became more stocky, and got blue eyes and white skin, would that not suggest, that europeans were mixed with neanderthals on a much larger scale? since dark skin, brown eyes are dominent. it takes at 3 or 4 generations before you can outbreed a dark skinned color, IE white breeds with black , mix black and white breeds with white.... mixed black and white breeds with white... end result, white person with white features. you could never tell that they were decendants from black people " hence a plan in australia in early colonisation to outbreed the aboriginal people as opposed to wiping them out.

therefore, one can deduce, that in fact, neanderthals not only interbred with humans, they dominated the breeding to a larger extent, average human height is 6 foot, but if you go back even 1000 years, the average height, was smaller in europe. you could summarize, that neanderthals dominated the humans with breeding, and became modern day europeans, and as neanderthals pure breed disapeared, more human/neanderthal + human breeding, resulted in humans being more... human, but retaining some features on neanderthals that could be seen as neanderthal features, but at same time, seen as human features.

as time goes by, the dna mutates and changed, who is to say that since Mdna is passed on through mother to child, that human women were'nt the ones taken by neanderthals and interbred, therefore passing on human Mdna and Y chromosone from the neanderthals, humans think themselves superior to much, and neanderthals were not stupid, and they were stronger, and more able to survive in the climate then humans, since it is the colder regions of europe where the white skin, is more prevalant, i think it is more likely, neanderthals and humans did fight, they did trade, and neandethals, with more males then females, often took human woman,hence making white europeans and over time, dna mutates, and since firstly being outbred by neanderthals, eventual superior numbers from warmer climates and also change of climate, over many thousands of more years later, humans bred out the majority of neanderthal dna, while passing on the inevitable mutation of human dna, hence, not seeing much similarities with neanderthal dna, it has mutated and been outbred over many thousands of years, while we still retain certain features of neanderthals

the last post that was made here, stating that neanderthal was pumped up on testosterone, wouldnt that alsp link to red heads reputation of being fiery and indeed like all europeans, very hot tempered and crazy at times

i have also just read this, which is something to think about

"re we genetically different from our Homo sapiens ancestors who lived 10-20,000 years ago? The answer is almost certainly yes. In fact, it is very likely that the rate of evolution for our species has continuously accelerated since the end of the last ice age, roughly 10,000 years ago. This is mostly due to the fact that our human population has explosively grown and moved into new kinds of environments, including cities, where we have been subject to new natural selection pressures. For instance, our larger and denser populations have made it far easier for contagious diseases, such as tuberculosis, small pox, and the plague, to rapidly spread through communities and wreak havoc. This has exerted strong selection for individuals who were fortunate to have immune systems that allowed them to survive. There also has been a marked change in diet for most people around the globe since the last ice age to one that is less varied and now predominantly vegetarian with a heavy dependence on foods made from cereal grains. It is likely that the human species has been able to adapt to these and other new environmental pressures because it has acquired a steadily greater genetic diversity. A larger population naturally has more mutations adding variation to its gene pool simply because there are more people. This happens even if the mutation rate per person remains the same. However, the mutation rate may have actually increased because we have been exposed to new kinds of environmental pollution that can cause additional mutations."

"In March 2010, Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany announced that the mitochondrial DNA recovered from a 50,000-30,000 year old finger bone found at a Siberian cave site known as Denisova is from an up to now unknown form of human (now referred to as the Denisovans). This possible new variety or even new species of human lived at the same time as Neandertals and early modern humans (March 24, 2010 Nature). About 4-6% of the DNA of the living New Guineans and other Melanesians appears to be inherited from the Denisovans (December 23, 2010 Nature). This would imply that their ancestors interbred to some extent."

anyway its something for you all to think about

this is just my theory

Dale Cooper
22-03-11, 12:40
New research shows that every non-african person have 4% of "neanderthal" gen... But I'm not an expert in that field. :cool-v:

how yes no 2
02-04-11, 19:52
I have read somewhere that Sioux people believe that white people are aliens who came to Earth from other planets... that is also how they explain why white people are so careless about the planet and not in touch with nature....

Cambrius (The Red)
02-04-11, 19:59
New research shows that every non-african person have 4% of "neanderthal" gen... But I'm not an expert in that field. :cool-v:


Latest research shows Europeans with up to 8% and Asians 1-2%. Black Africans have 0%.
European Neanderthal DNA is also different from what is found in Asians.

Maciamo
03-04-11, 18:34
that is also how they explain why white people are so careless about the planet and not in touch with nature....

I suppose you have never been to Africa, India or China to say such a thing. African and Indian cities are like big open-air rubbish dumps. Most places have no sewer, no waste collection, no recycling, and rubbish just piles up along the roads.

Nowadays it is mostly developing countries that destroy nature. Tropical countries like Brazil, Nigeria or Indonesia chop down thousands of square km of forest every year (well it won't last long in Nigeria since 90% of the forest have already disappeared). China is the world's biggest polluter, especially in terms of chemical and toxic wastes, which are rarely treated or recycled like in Europe.

Wilhelm
03-04-11, 19:50
I have read somewhere that Sioux people believe that white people are aliens who came to Earth from other planets... that is also how they explain why white people are so careless about the planet and not in touch with nature....
Are you really sure of what you say ? This is India and China :

http://sl.urosgrilc.com/wp-content/gallery/trosim/polluted_river.jpg


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04/28/article-0-011072AE00000578-863_468x317.jpg


http://iloapp.daisukebike.be/blog/blog?ShowFile&image=1248186027.jpg

http://zuzutop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/pollution-around-the-world2-.jpg

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7b92a5cd86f8.jpg

http://crunkish.com/qimages/5/India.jpg

http://www.rapingmothernature.com/wp-content/gallery/w3/9fe6b701_ANP_9282022.jpg

http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/22635/wm/pd1604386.jpg

how yes no 2
03-04-11, 21:14
I suppose you have never been to Africa, India or China to say such a thing. African and Indian cities are like big open-air rubbish dumps. Most places have no sewer, no waste collection, no recycling, and rubbish just piles up along the roads.
Nowadays it is mostly developing countries that destroy nature. Tropical countries like Brazil, Nigeria or Indonesia chop down thousands of square km of forest every year (well it won't last long in Nigeria since 90% of the forest have already disappeared). China is the world's biggest polluter, especially in terms of chemical and toxic wastes, which are rarely treated or recycled like in Europe.

:thinking:
hey, I just said what I read...
perhaps people from Asia and Africa are more aliens in Sioux world...


Are you really sure of what you say ? This is India and China :

if you are doing something bad, what comfort is that there are people doing worse things...

thing is we people make so much unnecessery garbage... perhaps in Europe that garbage is more recycled, more hidden in the end....but point is everything we buy, e.g. all food products are wrapped in plastics... average person probably produces one sack of garbage every week...most of it is plastic... if it is burned it polllutes, if it is dumped somewhere it pollutes... than all the chemicals we use...shampoos, soaps, detergents... it all goes to water systems....and than to seas... it's a matter of time when most of sea beings will die out...not to mention oil spills, radioactive leakage and similar freaky stuff...

we are efficently destroying the world we live in...

Knovas
18-12-11, 13:01
I already found a discussion at 23andme about Neandethal admixture. We read a lot of times about the possibility of interbreeding, but not much about the contrary. I personally tend to think we are partly descended from Neanderthals, however, I also think it's useful to see other points of view. Here are some sources that are used by an individual to claim the opposite. Specially seems that Neandethals could have 48 chromosomes instead of 46, and that would imply no compatibility. Check this: The only part of the genome that has been examined from multiple Neandertals, the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genome, consistently falls outside the variation found in present-day humans and thus provides no evidence for interbreeding."- A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome, Green et al http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full Targeted Retrieval and Analysis of Five Neandertal mtDNA Genomes, Briggs et al http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5938/318.full" And this about the 48 Chromosomes: http://www.riverapes.com/Me/Work/HumanHybridisationTheory.htm Let's see if somebody much versed on this, as for example Maciamo, can give an opinion saying how right or wrong is that.

elghund
18-12-11, 21:59
I already found a discussion at 23andme about Neandethal admixture. We read a lot of times about the possibility of interbreeding, but not much about the contrary. I personally tend to think we are partly descended from Neanderthals, however, I also think it's useful to see other points of view. Here are some sources that are used by an individual to claim the opposite. Specially seems that Neandethals could have 48 chromosomes instead of 46, and that would imply no compatibility. Check this: The only part of the genome that has been examined from multiple Neandertals, the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genome, consistently falls outside the variation found in present-day humans and thus provides no evidence for interbreeding."- A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome, Green et al http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full Targeted Retrieval and Analysis of Five Neandertal mtDNA Genomes, Briggs et al http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5938/318.full" And this about the 48 Chromosomes: http://www.riverapes.com/Me/Work/HumanHybridisationTheory.htm Let's see if somebody much versed on this, as for example Maciamo, can give an opinion saying how right or wrong is that.

I don't see this article provide any evidence that neanderthals had 48 chromosomes. It only states that if it did, that this difference would likely serve as a barrier to hybridization. That's a big if, especially since Neanderthals and Homo sapiens supposedly had a common ancestor less than a million years ago.

Has the Neanderthal Genome Project not been able to get an accurate count of the number of Neanderthals chromosomes yet? Accordxing to this film, they are already certain of interbreeding between our two species: http://www.mpg.de/914714/Neandertal

Another assertion by those studying the Neanderthal dna that states unequivocally that interbreeding has occurred: http://www.genome.gov/27539119

LeBrok
18-12-11, 22:24
Thanks elghund, I concur.

Savant
02-02-12, 17:13
IJ and IJK haplogroups have never been found in nature, they've never been seen anywhere. They have just been "theorized" to exist, in order to explain the existence of haplogroup I, which is not tied to any other human yDNA haplogroup except for through these hypothesized IJ and IJK haplos.


That's a very good point. :good_job: Considering the complex geographic carving of the European continent the probabilities that this is just a coincidence are very low indeed.



Neanderthalian haplogroups would have diverged from Homo Sapiens ones well before haplogroup A. Haplogroups C and D represent the first migrations of modern humans from Africa to Asia. I am convinced that these people mixed with the local descendants of Homo Erectus. There were at least two subspecies of Homo Erectus in Asia at the time, the one related to the Peking Man, and the one descended from the Java Man. The former mixed with both hg C and D to make Mongoloid people in East Asia. The latter intermingled with hg C (mostly) in modern Indonesia and Papua-New Guinea, then moved to Australia. Aboriginal Australians are their "purest descendants, followed by Papuans. But Indonesians certainly have a small amount of admixture too, even though it was mostly repopulated by East Asians.

Haplogroup E is typically African, so it's one of the least likely to have mixed with Neanderthals. The most likely are IJ and K.



Chinese Paleolithic people weren't Caucasian. The Ainu aren't Caucasian either, despite being hairier and having rounder eyes than typical Mongoloids.




I wouldn't try to link blood group with ethnicity. Chimps and gorillas have the same ABO blood groups as humans, so that is a very old genetic feature. Modern Native Americans are almost all O+, but it has been proven that pre-Columbian Natives had a lot of A and B too. The theory is that group O was better adapted to cope with the diseases brought by the Europeans (such as syphilis). Likewise the distribution of blood groups in Eurasia can be explained by various epidemics in the last 2000 years.




Neanderthal blood would have passed through y-haplogroup I. I2a2 being strong in the Balkans, this is where you should look. E-V13 replaced a lot of older I lineages in the southern Balkans, but did marry with native women of haplogroup U4, U5, H1, H3, etc. The same is true in North Africa. All native men of European descent have been killed or made not to pass their Y-DNA, but over half of maternal lineages in northern Morocco and north-west Algeria are of European descent. Neanderthal genes can pass just as well through mothers as fathers. Y-DNA is only one side of the story.

Savant
02-02-12, 17:18
Incorrect. Neanderthal did carry genes for light eyes and light hair (particularly red). Modern Europeans have that gene. PC placating geneticists try to deny this by asserting that it's not the same gene that Neanderthal had. Of course it isn't, it's got tens of thousands of years worth of mutation, but that's pretty obviously where it came from.


That's what I also hypothesised .

Central Asia appears to be the most likely place for Homo Sapiens-Neanderthal intermingling. Blond and red hair as well as blue eyes might well have come to Europe with the Indo-Europeans from the Eurasian plain. I think it is very probable that modern humans got fair skin, hair and eyes from Neanderthal in Central Asia around 45,000 years ago. These new hybrid modern humans would have belonged to Y-haplogroup K, who has spawned haplogroups L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S and T.

L and T moved back to South and South-West Asia (T as far as North-East Africa). M and S went all the way to Australia and Papua. N moved north to Siberia, O east to East Asia. P, Q and R remained in Central Asia for many millennia, then Q moved to north-east Siberia and the Americas around 20,000 years ago. R1 and R2 developed in Central Asia. R2 moved to northern India and Pakistan. R1 split into R1a and R1b. R1a remained all over Central Asia, with a branch in the Pontic steppe. R1b moved to northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia, the rejoined the western R1a branch across the Caucasus. Their fusion gave birth to Indo-European culture and people, then expanded into Europe and back to Central and South Asia.

That's a very brief and schematic summary of how Neanderthal genes spread all over Eurasia.

As for why fair hair and eyes are not found among the first branches to depart from Central Asia (N, O and Q), there are several possibilities.

1) N, O and Q people mixed early with another human population and lost the fair hair and eyes gene before expanding. My guess is that they mixed with another hybrid, of Homo Sapiens and the descendants of the Peking Man, which gave the Mongoloid features to East Asians, Siberians and Native Americans. These older Homo Sapiens in East Asia belonged to Y-haplogroup C and D. N, O and Q might have replaced them as paternal lineages for . I am increasingly in favour of a.

2) The fair hair and eyes mutations were not present in the people who migrated north and east from Central Asia. It was only inherited by another tribe, who later became the R people.

3) The fair hair and eyes mutation did not come from Neanderthal but was a later independent happening.

Savant
02-02-12, 17:22
I can verify this.


I suppose you have never been to Africa, India or China to say such a thing. African and Indian cities are like big open-air rubbish dumps. Most places have no sewer, no waste collection, no recycling, and rubbish just piles up along the roads.

Nowadays it is mostly developing countries that destroy nature. Tropical countries like Brazil, Nigeria or Indonesia chop down thousands of square km of forest every year (well it won't last long in Nigeria since 90% of the forest have already disappeared). China is the world's biggest polluter, especially in terms of chemical and toxic wastes, which are rarely treated or recycled like in Europe.

Savant
02-02-12, 17:50
Another interesting item is the "disappearance" of Neanderthal, which supposedly happened at the end of the 10-25k year era during which Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal coexisted in civilizations. They also "disappeared" in the very same regions that Cro-Mag and Neanderthal coexisted during the ice age, in the various "refugia" regions where they all fled to survive the Ice Age. Curiously, after the end of the Ice Age, Neanderthal had "disappeared", and basically modern Europeans supposedly emerged. Further these modern Europeans strangely are the only population which regularly extol expressions of Neanderthal traits (prominent brow ridge, occipital bun, sloped forehead, etc.), the only population which has the broad diversity of hair and eye color which Neanderthal had, the same genes for freckling and sensitivity to sunlight, and genes which regulate brain size and density of neural matter which Neanderthal had, but African Homo Sapien did not... Hmmm....

Further, it's well cited that the most genetically distant human groups, such as Northern Europeans and Sub Saharan Africans share 98.5-99% of base pairs, yet according to all the Neanderthal genomic data we have so far modern Euros and Neanderthal share 99.7% of base pairs... Anyone else starting to wonder about how this "disappearance" event could have actually consisted of?

Kardu
02-02-12, 19:17
Interesting points, Jaden. I'd like to hear more discussion about this topic..

sparkey
02-02-12, 19:30
Further, it's well cited that the most genetically distant human groups, such as Northern Europeans and Sub Saharan Africans share 98.5-99% of base pairs, yet according to all the Neanderthal genomic data we have so far modern Euros and Neanderthal share 99.7% of base pairs... Anyone else starting to wonder about how this "disappearance" event could have actually consisted of?

These statistics sound wrong. Have sources?

Surely, all Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups present in modern Europeans are African Homo Sapiens in origin, rather than Neanderthal. That puts a limit on the amount of autosomal DNA Neanderthals could have introduced, especially considering that mtDNA in particular has a relatively low bottlenecking rate and little selection pressure. I don't discount the hypothesis that certain autosomal traits could have been introduced via Neanderthal interbreeding and then selected for, but the total autosomal input can't be nearly as high as you're suggesting.

sparkey
02-02-12, 19:36
IJ and IJK haplogroups have never been found in nature, they've never been seen anywhere. They have just been "theorized" to exist, in order to explain the existence of haplogroup I, which is not tied to any other human yDNA haplogroup except for through these hypothesized IJ and IJK haplos.

You're right that IJ and IJK are currently unobserved (as is I* for that matter), but you're wrong about IJ and IJK being purely hypothesized. I is tied to J via common SNPs that mutate very slowly, so for IJ not to have existed at one point is a statistical impossibility. Same goes for IJ being tied to K to make IJK. Don't fool yourself into thinking that Haplogroup I does not share a common ancestor with J, probably from Asia, and a common African ancestor with the rest of the modern human Y-DNA haplogroups.

Savant
17-02-12, 09:28
The dual origins notion is about the only reasonable contribution Coon made to evolutionary / physical anthropology. The man was wrong on just about everything else... A nut-job.

It could be worse. I mean, at least he's not Gould or Boas :laughing:

Savant
17-02-12, 09:35
Eventually enough hard evidence will be accumulated that provides sufficient proof of Cro-Magnon / Neanderthal mixing.

Funny how now that the Neanderthal issue has been raised they have juggled back and forth on what a "Cro-Magnon" actually is. Apparently it was decided a "Cro-Magnon" means something different in Europe than it does for everyone else, then when this was pointed out they ended up deciding that Cro-Magnon was not actually a scientific or anthropological distinction.

Savant
17-02-12, 09:51
You're right that IJ and IJK are currently unobserved (as is I* for that matter), but you're wrong about IJ and IJK being purely hypothesized. I is tied to J via common SNPs that mutate very slowly, so for IJ not to have existed at one point is a statistical impossibility. Same goes for IJ being tied to K to make IJK. Don't fool yourself into thinking that Haplogroup I does not share a common ancestor with J, probably from Asia, and a common African ancestor with the rest of the modern human Y-DNA haplogroups.

You're trying to play a semantics game. The fact that IJ and IJK have never been observed means that they have been hypothesized. I APPEARS TO be tied to J but that merely reinforces MY point because J is supposed to have descended from the imaginary IJ and IJK haplogroups too. So the fact that I and J seem to share some (very old) commonality merely begs the question. We DO know that I lived among Neanderthal and inhabited the same Paleolithic refuge enclaves as Neanderthal, such as Doggerland, and coexisted for at least 10-15k years. We DO know that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon interbred. So why then, do we "know" that all Y and mt haplogroups in Euros are of Afro-Sapiens origin? We DO know that Neanderthal and Cro-Mag interbred, we DO know that the lived together for thousands of years, we DO know that we can't tie I to the rest of the OOA sapiens haplogroups, other than through imaginary hypothesized haplogroups . So, how then is it that we "know" that's where it came from? Sounds a bit like an article of faith to me....

Savant
17-02-12, 09:57
These statistics sound wrong. Have sources?

Surely, all Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups present in modern Europeans are African Homo Sapiens in origin, rather than Neanderthal. That puts a limit on the amount of autosomal DNA Neanderthals could have introduced, especially considering that mtDNA in particular has a relatively low bottlenecking rate and little selection pressure. I don't discount the hypothesis that certain autosomal traits could have been introduced via Neanderthal interbreeding and then selected for, but the total autosomal input can't be nearly as high as you're suggesting.

Your assertion is "surely" based on a false assumption. And no, even if all yDNA and mtDNA hgs were Afro Sapiens in origin this does not "put a limit on the amount of autosomal DNA" Neanderthals could have introduced. There are r1b men in sub saharan africa with almost entirely african autosomes. Further, even if this fairy tale were true, there's nothing which links I to the rest other than these imaginary haplogroups that no one has ever seen. Yet, there's strong evidence which suggests it could have come from previously present paleolithic populations.

Savant
17-02-12, 14:04
According to Ken Nordtvedt, probably the most active yDNA hg I researcher:

We have never found a single haplotype of IJK, IJ, or I* And a very long time goes by between the IJK nodeman and the earliest clades of I that we see --- perhaps the I2* and I2a1 M26+ clades. We're talking several tens of thousands of years.

Just sayin....

1rainman
18-02-12, 03:32
A few corrections:

Cro-Magnon only existed in Europe. Cro-Magnon looks like a modern European (except larger brain the modern Europeans and a bit more robust). The Cro-Magnon seems to be the result of a gentic bottleneck with homo erectus (or related) ancestors. That's where modern Europeans came from- Cro-Magnon. The "Nordic" racial type is nothing but a less robust cro-magnon, which again probably originated from a small tribe that genetically drifted/mutated a bit into modern Nordic features and spread due to adaptability.

Cave Paintings along with flutes, advanced religion, knowledge of astronomy etc. is assocaited with cro-magnon early on and with no other human species at this time.

Physcially the "Kazar" racial type (often associated with Ashkenazi Jews) is the closest modern physical resemblance to a Neanderthal. From what I've read though there was some interbreeding and some small percentage of neanderthal in modern Europeans. Yet this is maybe 2%. Pretty much all the mutations associated with modern Europeans occured in cro-magnon. Neanderthal might have contributed something though.

Jotuns are the equivalent of Greek Titans and Norse mythology doesn't vary much from other Aryan mythologies.


From Indian (Aryan-Vedic) records we have an understanding of Aryan mytholgoy in which the Asuras (Aesir) are assocaited with "heaven". These are astrological gods which progenated the "Aryan" race. The Aryan race has light feature as a result, namely blue eyes. The story is also in the Bible (influenced by Aryan mythology) when the sons of god mated with the sons of man to great the nephilim- giants of old.

This is where the concept of "white devil" or "blue eyed devil" comes from. According to this line of thought Aryans are aliens to this planet and non-Aryans are the natives. Is it supposed to be a literal story? It comes down in fragments. The "Gods" are planets- mars, mercury etc. could be simply that Aryans had a knowledge of astrology and associated themselves with being the "sky people". In India you see the gods depicted as blue skinned (like the sky) elves are known as "the shining ones- brighter than the sun" blond hair shining like the sun etc. it's all associated with sky.

Taranis
18-02-12, 08:16
A few corrections:

Cro-Magnon only existed in Europe. Cro-Magnon looks like a modern European (except larger brain the modern Europeans and a bit more robust). The Cro-Magnon seems to be the result of a gentic bottleneck with homo erectus (or related) ancestors. That's where modern Europeans came from- Cro-Magnon. The "Nordic" racial type is nothing but a less robust cro-magnon, which again probably originated from a small tribe that genetically drifted/mutated a bit into modern Nordic features and spread due to adaptability.

Cave Paintings along with flutes, advanced religion, knowledge of astronomy etc. is assocaited with cro-magnon early on and with no other human species at this time.

Physcially the "Kazar" racial type (often associated with Ashkenazi Jews) is the closest modern physical resemblance to a Neanderthal. From what I've read though there was some interbreeding and some small percentage of neanderthal in modern Europeans. Yet this is maybe 2%. Pretty much all the mutations associated with modern Europeans occured in cro-magnon. Neanderthal might have contributed something though.

Jotuns are the equivalent of Greek Titans and Norse mythology doesn't vary much from other Aryan mythologies.


From Indian (Aryan-Vedic) records we have an understanding of Aryan mytholgoy in which the Asuras (Aesir) are assocaited with "heaven". These are astrological gods which progenated the "Aryan" race. The Aryan race has light feature as a result, namely blue eyes. The story is also in the Bible (influenced by Aryan mythology) when the sons of god mated with the sons of man to great the nephilim- giants of old.

This is where the concept of "white devil" or "blue eyed devil" comes from. According to this line of thought Aryans are aliens to this planet and non-Aryans are the natives. Is it supposed to be a literal story? It comes down in fragments. The "Gods" are planets- mars, mercury etc. could be simply that Aryans had a knowledge of astrology and associated themselves with being the "sky people". In India you see the gods depicted as blue skinned (like the sky) elves are known as "the shining ones- brighter than the sun" blond hair shining like the sun etc. it's all associated with sky.

Such nonsense is not tolerated here. Banned.

Savant
18-02-12, 13:14
:petrified: Surely he was joking... I'm unrestrained by orthodoxy as they come, but THIS guy, wow!! Nordics are CMs who are like Ashkenazi Jews who are like Neanderhtals who are like Greek Titans and Aryan deities?! Because they have blue eyes? and are "sky people"?

:laughing::laughing::petrified::petrified:

That guy is going to be passing out the green kool-aid and selling tickets for the next comet any day now... He's pretty hard-core. That one is gonna be hard to top... :confused2:

Hopion
03-03-12, 13:15
OK so ? What does cro - means and what does magnon - means ??

Taranis
03-03-12, 13:26
OK so ? What does cro - means and what does magnon - means ??

You return again under a different name to avoid your previous bans. Oh, I think you're banned again.

Klausin
03-03-12, 13:50
I think that was just to harsh towards a boy, oh well. Btw what does Cro-magnon means ??

Savant
12-03-12, 20:06
That's the thing; they can't make up their mind what Cro-Mag means, they did decide that it means something else for Europeans than it means for everyone else, then they decided that it wasn't an actual scientific distinction at all. I'm not sure what the current designation it is for the term. If I had to guess I'd say it's probably now categorized as a "social construct".

edao
18-04-12, 09:09
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59710000/jpg/_59710496_neanderthal_shirt_spl304.jpg
How I traced my ancestry back to the Stone Age

As genome research continues at a greater pace than ever before, sometime in the next decade the cost of having your whole genome sequenced - all three billion letters of the code - will become affordable. When that happens, it will change genetic genealogy all over again, the experts I talked to say.


"What you'll be able to do is look at an individual's genome and say, all right, they have this mutation, which arose in a particular village in the south of France, for example," says Harvard genetecist expert Joe Pickrell.


"You'd be able to say with nearly 100% certainty that you have some ancestor who came from that particular village."



source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17527318)

misssunlight
19-05-12, 09:51
I heard some people methoded this thing in college, but I doubted

silkyslovanbojkovsky
30-08-13, 08:32
Human societies everywhere on Earth have lived for thousands of years with gender roles. In fact humans have separated tasks between men and women ever since the stone age. Men went hunting or warring while women were gathering, taking care of the children or sewing clothes from animal skins. Hormones influence the specialisation of the brain. This is why men and women think and feel differently. Gender role division runs deep into our genes.

Gender equality is something that appeared in Northern Europe. Medieval Norse societies were already much more egalitarian, socially and sexually, than any other part of Europe at the time. Even though women's rights activism has now spread through most of the Western world and has reached other countries since (e.g. China, thanks to communism), the only societies where women can really aspire to act and be treated like the equal of men are only found in Nordic countries.

Now what is interesting is that Neanderthals did not practice gender role division, like Homo Sapiens. Both men and women went hunting together. Some specialists have argued that could be why Homo Sapiens ultimately got an advantage over Neanderthals, as women had spare time to make clothes, build tools or make pottery vessels, becoming technologically superior to their distant cousins.

If gender roles are genetically determined in modern humans, how comes that out of all humans in the world some came to act differently, more like Neanderthals. Maybe a percentage of the Scandinavians have always behaved this way justly because they inherited the "gender equality" gene from Neanderthal. It does not mean at all that they are the modern Neanderthals, just that they inherited at least this gene. It only takes one accidental mating with a Neanderthal at one point to spread some of their genes through a Homo Sapiens population. If it is useful it is survive natural selection, even if only locally.

There is overwhelming evidence that modern humans inherited at least some genes from Neanderthal (see above). Maybe that it less than 0.1% of our genome, but it is there. Blue eyes and red hair could very well have come from Neanderthal too. Why not the gender equality gene ? I am not even arguing the existence of such a gene. It is evident from the archeological evidence about the difference of lifestyle between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal. It could not have been cultural. Some animals also have gene for gender equality (e.g. ducks), while others are genetically determined for role separation (e.g. lions).

Had gender equality been characteristic of many human societies on Earth for centuries, we could argue that the gene might have spread worldwide. However I think that this phenomenon is more limited to people of Scandinavian descent, who spread the gene through most of the Western world at varying levels with the Viking invasions. Gender equality is not so much cultural as genetic. Parts of Europe closely related to Scandinavia, be it the Baltic, the Netherlands or East England all have a higher tendency to gender equality. Conversely, the most genetically distant countries (Greece, Southern Italy) also have the most marked gender division.

Interesting, but lets not forget that cultural influence and ideas have a huge affect on the way people perceive things and live there life. You stated northern Slavic people have along with other mainly northern European peoples more Neanderthal genes, but Gender roles are quite different in Slavic culture, actually in all eastern European culture.

LeBrok
30-08-13, 17:00
Gender roles are quite different in Slavic culture, actually in all eastern European culture.
Different compared to who (other nations), or different to each other?

silkyslovanbojkovsky
30-08-13, 20:42
Different compared to who (other nations), or different to each other?

Im stating that gender roles are apparently different in Slavic culture. Im not comparing it to any specific nation. Maciamo was stating that in Neanderthal culture males and females had similar roles hunting, gathering etc. Where as this was not the case in Cro-Magnon where they had very different roles. In Slavic culture women have always had very different roles than men. Even in Modern times when I compare the times Ive lived in western Europe to eastern Europe, there was a very apparent difference in the way women were expected and did act in eastern Europe as apposed to in western Europe. This is even apparent in the Slavic languages where the grammar for females is very different than the grammar for males. Maciamo had stated earlier that Northern Slavic people probably had higher genes from Neanderthal, but if this is the case why would they not be like Nordic countries, and not have as much distinction in gender roles, because Slavic culture does have this distinction. I understand Maciamo is just stating thoughts that maybe these culture traits can come from genetics, but I think a lot of times we, im using this term broadly, anthropologists make the mistake of thinking culture doesn't have as big an affect as it really does.

Noman
30-08-13, 21:52
Gender equality was absolute in celtic societies and was never completely lost. The english imposed it more on the cymry and irish than they ever practiced it themselves.

edit: The funny thing about him getting banned is if he replaced aryan (ancient name for persian) with Indo European "race" then it would fit almost exactly with what maciamo claims happened with indo europeans. Though I'd say this clearly didn't really happen anyway, and these r1b have been all over a long time and the gedrosian marker is simply invalid. You can't choose a marker and assume it's got no selection on it when the population you study is nearly homogenous. That means it's in a selective sweep. Invalid methodology, end of story. You can only get some kind of info out of autosomals when they are relatively rare remnants that are obviously not under selection, like when looking for introgression of ancient hominids.

I also can't see any support to say neanderthal features are primarily nordic. It's just not true. Basque, Irish, and certain jews and nonjew ukrainians(the real khazarian type that is not that common any more, often with red or reddish hair, blue eyes and large skull) show much more neanderthal features than any other populations. Only similarity to neanderthals and nordics is a longer skull, front to back, but that exists in some black africans, too. With no occipital bun it's clearly not neanderthal in origin.

Toscano
07-10-13, 18:54
Noman

Modern Europeans have much "Indo-europeean" heritage. The persians are mostly arabic/semitic with small procent of aryan admixture.

You talk much shit to be hounest. I can tell your a superculturemarxist.

And i dont even bealive Northeuropeans are superior. I am italian myself - I just dont like the idé of Indians and Persians to be some civilisation starters. Becuse thats a pure LIE.

Sorry for my bad english.

Regio X
19-11-14, 03:37
Firstly, id like to say good job and well done, i enjoyed this reading, and it presents a very possible perspective.

Secondly, i would like to contribute another source that might confirm this theory, this source is to be found in the religion of the early scandinavian people.

In general, Mythologies and early religions existed mainly to describe the things that could not be comprehended or explained at the time, that is why i believe that some confirmation to your claim that the scandinavian may in fact be some of the closest descendants to the Neanderthals, is within the early nordic mythology.

As all other mythologies of the time, there is a story describing the origin of the world and its inhabitants.
The Tale "Voluspa" Describes the creation of the world,
in the north lay the cold Niflheim, which consisted of tundras and frost, and in the south lay Muspelheim, a kingdom of fire and heat. Exactly as in the real world in the perspective of a person living in scandinavia.
Other than these kingdoms there was nothing but a cold empty chasm. Then came the first living creature, a Huge giant by the name "Ymer" and when he whent to sleep a jötunn son and a jötunn daughter grew from his armpit. The rest of his body contributed to creating the entire landscape, and also the "Gods".
From his hair came the woods. From his blood came the ocean. From his bones came the mountains. From his teeth came the sand and rocks.
Then his own creation Killed him when the gods, Odin, Vili and Vé, the Oldest gods of Nordic mythology turned against him.

I want to point out the Jötunn, are always described as a race that didnt live in Asgaard, but in Udgaard. As the gods lived in Asgaard. They are in all sources(prose Edda, poetic Edda, Voluspa, Heimskringla, Tyrfing and many others) described as stronger, bigger and more cunning than the normal humans who live in Midgaard.

The Voluspa Tale, ends with the destruction of the world.
The world will end with Ragnarok, a huge conflict in which all the beast in the world and the "Jötunns" will fight against the gods and the humans.
And according to the story, the humans will win, and start a new life in a new world.


What really makes gets me thinking here is this "Jötunn" people, i have never seen any mythology that empathizes so strongly on the different "tribes" of people. Normally, as in roman, greek, egyptian, zarathustra and others, there is One evil beast or person, or a handful. But never an entire Branch, living next to you.
Lets presume that these "Jötunns" where Neanderthals or close descendants of Neanderthals, they would look physically bigger and stronger, and with their slightly bigger brain capacity, we should presume that in some areas they would be smarter than the humans, maybe more cunning. If you didnt know why, you were so closesly related but yet so different with these strange humans that live a bit further down the river that you catch fist at, wouldnt that be something that you very strongly would want to have explained, for instance through religion?

Pressuming the forerunners to Nordic mythology was orally passed stories in families, that spread to tales and myths, untill they were written down in runes, which we dig up many years later.
What if scandinavian tribes intermingled with the Jötunns a long long time ago, even before the first nordic mythology sources, im not saying the entire scandinavian race is a cross bred of homo sapiens and Neanderthals but a lesser part might be.

Well, well, well, it seems that the closest descendants to the Neanderthals are in fact the tuscans, according to a recent documentary. Look on Youtube for "Neanderthals Decoded(full documentary)HD", and watch from about minute 44:45.

Greying Wanderer
19-11-14, 07:08
I think it likely there were other archaic introgressions in addition to the one in the middle east that created "Basal" and the one involving Denisovan connected to East Asians. I and J seem like the most plausible candidates for this - J in the Caucasus maybe and I in the Balkans or Scandinavia. I wouldn't say the haplogroups were necessarily archaic in themselves but I wonder if the process of introgression has a tendency to create ydna mutations for some reason.

Also if I understand it right then the calculated percentage of Neanderthal dna is based on one Neanderthal genome so if there were multiple Neanderthal (or other archaic) populations and multiple admixture events and we have c. 4% from one of these events then populations that are the product of multiple such events over time might have a larger total percentage.

Aberdeen
19-11-14, 07:24
deleted by poster

Aberdeen
19-11-14, 07:29
deleted by poster

Minty
01-07-16, 11:34
I have read further studies mentioning that at first (until about 40,000 years ago), Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons had the same tools, technology and lifestyle. Both buried their deaths, with similar ornaments. The Cro-Magnons then developed new tools, which were either copied or developed independently later by Neanderthals. As a matter of intelligence, both seem to be equivalent. Skeletons of hybrids of the two species dating from 25,000 years ago, around the time of the disapperance of Neanderthals, may indicate that their disappearance was indeed due to a genetic absorbtion by the increasingly numerous Cro-Magnons. This latter would have outnumbered Neanderthals due to to the cooling of the climate and the fact that Neanderthals always lived more North, in colder regions with less food, while Cro-Magnon could migrate south more easily via the Middle East to Africa, then come back more numerous when climate warmed up again. There have been signs of trade between the two species, which show that they had amicable contacts, and could very well of interbred with each others.

Furthermore, we see around 15-20,000 years ago, just after the hypothetical merger of the 2 species, the appearance of mural paintings in caves. This phenomemon is strictly limited to Western Europe. Why would such paintings have been done by European Cro-Magnon only, and not other Cro-Magnon (=Homo Sapiens) around the world ? I believe that this could be due to the racial convergence with Neanderthal, because Neanderthal had a more developed occipital lobe, and thus a better vision and visual memory, resulting in an earlier development of visual arts. This also explains the difference in skull shape, especially the more elongated occipital lobe, between Caucasoids and other humans, esp. compared to Mongoloids.

Some French and American researchers also found convincing evidence of an direct evolution from the Asian Homo Erectus toward the modern Asian Homo Sapiens, probably after interbreeding with a new arrival of Homo Sapiens from the Middle East.

I read those homos Neanderthalensis, better known as Neanderthals, are believed to be extinct hominid cousins of our species, Homo sapiens. However, scientists have recently discovered that some humans have genes in common with Neanderthals, an unexpected twist which dispels the former extinction truth. Some anthropologists have argued for years that there must be presence of Neanderthals genes in modern Homo sapiens, but their theory is based solely on the similarities of skull and skeletal structures.

Despite the similarities in skull/skeletal structure, some anthropologist argued that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens were separate species, interbreeding was deemed impossible, and therefore it never occurred.

The controversy can now be laid to rest as Dr Richard E. Green and fifty other members of an international research team have recently published a study for the American association for Advancement of Science in their journal science, that demonstrates a flow "of genetic material" between early Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals.

The newest research into Neanderthals DNA is all the more compelling. It has unveiled that bits of genome, which modern Homo sapiens share with Neanderthals, are not present in Sub-Saharan African genes, but present in human populations in all other parts of the globe.

In order for Neanderthal genes to be so widespread across the globe, and be present in parts of the world which Neanderthals never migrated, such as Papua New Guinea, interbreeding must have occurred very early in chronology of human migration, outside of Africa. It is inferred that the first human migrants out of Africa encountered Neanderthals, or perhaps another hominid species that had a component of Neanderthal genes, in Arabia or the Middle East, around 80 000 years ago.

It is not speculated as to why interbreeding took place between Neanderthals and non-African homo sapiens, or if it was even consensual, but that the gene flow travelled only in one direction, from Neanderthals male to homo sapiens female. The resulting children were more likely to be raised by Homo sapiens, according to study results of mitochondrial DNA.

In light of the recent developments of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens relations, academics specializing in hominid evolution agree that this discovery may suggest and more complex crowded human family tree, than the current model expresses. The current model may need to be altered in the future if more hybrid, intermediate subspecies, or variants on human species are discovered.

Existing models of the human family tree depict Homo sapiens and homo Nederthanlensis as a separate species. However, with new DNA evidence suggesting non-African modern humans are more closely related to Neanderthals, the tree may need altering for non-Africans who are descendants of “humerthals” ...human/Neanderthals hybrids.

A team led by Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany recently examined patterns of nuclear genome variation in modern humans. The study identified twelve genome regions where non-African possessed variants which weren't found in indigenous Africans, with ten variants matching genomes derived from Neanderthals.

Those genome variants have led to non-African modern humans further evolving their genome from even that of Neanderthals, allowing greater survival through natural selection. The affected genes identified in the study are responsible for coding cognitive, metabolic and skeletal development.

Also addressed by scientist, are concerns that their findings, which highlight genetic differences in modern non-African human relatedness to Neanderthals, may spark racial questions of inferiority. Scientific evidence confirms Neanderthals do not cause non-Africans to be inferior to indigenous Africans.

Rather, inbreeding with Neanderthals would have evolved migrating Homo sapiens (non-Africans) quicker by transferring genes crucial to survival in any harsh condition. Neanderthals had already acquired these genes as they had migrated out of Africa thousands of years prior to Homo sapiens.

Furthermore, anybody who claims to be indigenous Africans but possesses genes indicating a genetic heritage to Neanderthals be included in the category of non-African, even if they continue to reside in the continent of Africa. There are two potential scenarios to explain these occurrences:

Scenario 1: An African's ancestor(s) migrated out of Africa at some point in time, bred with a non-African(s), and then back migrated into Africa where they reside today.

Scenario 2: An African's ancestor(s) bred with somebody of non-African descent in Africa.

Either scenario would have allowed Neanderthal genes to be administered to an African genome and cause the individual to no longer belong to a group of purely indigenous Africans.

Often, is the case in North Africans, where heavy amounts of non-Africans back-migrated and settled, causing the modern populations to possess Neanderthals genes even if their ancestors resided in Africa as long as 20 000 years ago.

Also in the case of African Americans. Their ancestors’ relocation outside of Africa allowed breeding with non-Africans, causing some modern African Americans to possess Neanderthals genes like non-Africans.

So, according to these studies, non-Africans are all Neanderthals not just Europeans. We are the reason Neanderthals never became extinct. They live on each and every one of our genomes.

bicicleur
01-07-16, 11:57
There was interbreeding in SW Asia ca 55-60 ka.
Haplo A, B and E didn't interbreed with Neanderthal. Mota E 4.5 ka didn't have Neanderthal admixture.
That leaves C, D and F. Did they interbreed all 3 or just one of them?
IMO only C did and it got to F and D through admixture with C.

Basal Eurasian didn't have Neanderthal DNA.
IMO Basal Eurasian is FGH which split from IJK ca 48 ka and then lived in isolation in central & southern India till ca 30 ka.
FGH was free of Neanderthal admixure till ca 30 ka.

The Oase I sample didn't get his Neanderthal DNA in SW Asia ca 55-60 ka, it got it in Europe ca 40 ka, right before the Neanderthals got extinct in Europe.

Minty
02-07-16, 09:12
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/science/a-new-theory-on-how-neanderthal-dna-spread-in-asia.html?_r=0

According to the above article, researchers found a peculiar pattern in non-Africans: People in China, Japan and other East Asian countries have about 20 percent more Neanderthal DNA than do Europeans.

The article also mentioned that most Neanderthal genes probably had modestly bad effects on the health of our ancestors, Dr. Sankararaman and other researchers have found. People who inherited a Neanderthal version of any given gene would have had fewer children on average than people with the human version.

Then it went on and has informed us that If Neanderthals became extinct 40,000 years ago, they may have disappeared before Europeans and Asian populations genetically diverged. How could there have been Neanderthals left to interbreed with Asians a second time?

It is conceivable that the extinction of the Neanderthals happened later in Asia. If that is true, there might yet be more recent Neanderthal fossils waiting to be discovered there.

Or perhaps Asians interbred with some other group of humans that had interbred with Neanderthals and carried much of their DNA. Later, that group disappeared.

“That’s a paradox the field needs to address,” Dr. Lohmueller said.


Ok, so people in here are saying that Nordic ppl who have light features would therefore have the highest percentage of Neanderthals genomes. Well, apparently, this latest research have just debunked their theories. They are now saying that people in China, Japan and other East Asian countries have about 20 percent more Neanderthal DNA than do Europeans.

Neanderthals have large heads according to the studies I have read. If you notice East Asian people do indeed have larger heads in comparison to their bodies unlike Caucasian and African people. East Asian people are also shorter on average than the other people, with the exception of Koreans and Northern Chinese. East Asians can appeared to be quiet light in skin colors, but do not have light hair or eyes unlike Caucasians. Anyway, they are saying except the indigenous Africans, everybody else is a hybrid of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, so only certain features would be inherited, and others have gone through genetic mutations overtime.


That's what I also hypothesised here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24894) and here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24164).

Central Asia appears to be the most likely place for Homo Sapiens-Neanderthal intermingling. Blond and red hair as well as blue eyes might well have come to Europe with the Indo-Europeans from the Eurasian plain. I think it is very probable that modern humans got fair skin, hair and eyes from Neanderthal in Central Asia around 45,000 years ago. These new hybrid modern humans would have belonged to Y-haplogroup K, who has spawned haplogroups L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S and T.

L and T moved back to South and South-West Asia (T as far as North-East Africa). M and S went all the way to Australia and Papua. N moved north to Siberia, O east to East Asia. P, Q and R remained in Central Asia for many millennia, then Q moved to north-east Siberia and the Americas around 20,000 years ago. R1 and R2 developed in Central Asia. R2 moved to northern India and Pakistan. R1 split into R1a and R1b. R1a remained all over Central Asia, with a branch in the Pontic steppe. R1b moved to northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia, the rejoined the western R1a branch across the Caucasus. Their fusion gave birth to Indo-European culture and people, then expanded into Europe and back to Central and South Asia.

That's a very brief and schematic summary of how Neanderthal genes spread all over Eurasia.

As for why fair hair and eyes are not found among the first branches to depart from Central Asia (N, O and Q), there are several possibilities.

1) N, O and Q people mixed early with another human population and lost the fair hair and eyes gene before expanding. My guess is that they mixed with another hybrid, of Homo Sapiens and the descendants of the Peking Man, which gave the Mongoloid features to East Asians, Siberians and Native Americans. These older Homo Sapiens in East Asia belonged to Y-haplogroup C and D. N, O and Q might have replaced them as paternal lineages for any of the reasons that R1a and R1b replaced older Y-lineages in Europe (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b-conquest). I am increasingly in favour of a genetic predisposition for these haplogroups to father more boys (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25816).

2) The fair hair and eyes mutations were not present in the people who migrated north and east from Central Asia. It was only inherited by another tribe, who later became the R people.

3) The fair hair and eyes mutation did not come from Neanderthal but was a later independent happening.


I think this is possible, they found another species "Denisovans ",but they need more DNA samples to construct the physical appearance of this 3rd human species found. A mysterious new species of human being who lived alongside our ancestors 30,000 years ago has been discovered by scientists.

The cavemen, called Denisovans, were identified from DNA taken from a tooth and finger bone found in a cave in Siberia.

They walked the Earth during the last Ice Age when modern humans were developing sophisticated stone tools, jewellery and art.

The finding means there were at least three distinct members of the human family tree alive at the time - modern humans, Denisovans and Neanderthals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1340830/There-THREE-types-ancient-humans-30-000-year-old-finger-fossil-new-species.html

PaleoRevenge
04-12-16, 21:03
Where is evidence is there that IJK came out of Africa? I haven't seen, just a politically correct slogan. The IJK population were likely always living next to the Neanderthals which they eventually out-competed. I can't think of a haplogroup least related sub-Sahara Africa than haplogroup I, the whole concept is laughable.

Goga
04-12-16, 21:14
I guess that the more archaic Homo Sapien haplogroup CT is out of Africa that gave birth to all populations outside Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_CT



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Y-DNA_tree.GIF

PaleoRevenge
04-12-16, 22:33
Where is the proof that it ever came out of Africa? Haplogroup E most likely developed near Israel and migrated to Africa displacing obsolete hominids there. This out of Africa slogan is more of like a belief commandment.

firetown
07-12-16, 15:10
So why do we consider Neanderthals extinct? Couldn't it have been that simply they became outnumbered by the other homo species and through 10s of 1,000s of years of mixing their isolated gene pool disappeared into the species we are today?


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/science/a-new-theory-on-how-neanderthal-dna-spread-in-asia.html?_r=0

According to the above article, researchers found a peculiar pattern in non-Africans: People in China, Japan and other East Asian countries have about 20 percent more Neanderthal DNA than do Europeans.

The article also mentioned that most Neanderthal genes probably had modestly bad effects on the health of our ancestors, Dr. Sankararaman and other researchers have found. People who inherited a Neanderthal version of any given gene would have had fewer children on average than people with the human version.

Then it went on and has informed us that If Neanderthals became extinct 40,000 years ago, they may have disappeared before Europeans and Asian populations genetically diverged. How could there have been Neanderthals left to interbreed with Asians a second time?

It is conceivable that the extinction of the Neanderthals happened later in Asia. If that is true, there might yet be more recent Neanderthal fossils waiting to be discovered there.

Or perhaps Asians interbred with some other group of humans that had interbred with Neanderthals and carried much of their DNA. Later, that group disappeared.

“That’s a paradox the field needs to address,” Dr. Lohmueller said.


Ok, so people in here are saying that Nordic ppl who have light features would therefore have the highest percentage of Neanderthals genomes. Well, apparently, this latest research have just debunked their theories. They are now saying that people in China, Japan and other East Asian countries have about 20 percent more Neanderthal DNA than do Europeans.

Neanderthals have large heads according to the studies I have read. If you notice East Asian people do indeed have larger heads in comparison to their bodies unlike Caucasian and African people. East Asian people are also shorter on average than the other people, with the exception of Koreans and Northern Chinese. East Asians can appeared to be quiet light in skin colors, but do not have light hair or eyes unlike Caucasians. Anyway, they are saying except the indigenous Africans, everybody else is a hybrid of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, so only certain features would be inherited, and others have gone through genetic mutations overtime.




I think this is possible, they found another species "Denisovans ",but they need more DNA samples to construct the physical appearance of this 3rd human species found. A mysterious new species of human being who lived alongside our ancestors 30,000 years ago has been discovered by scientists.

The cavemen, called Denisovans, were identified from DNA taken from a tooth and finger bone found in a cave in Siberia.

They walked the Earth during the last Ice Age when modern humans were developing sophisticated stone tools, jewellery and art.

The finding means there were at least three distinct members of the human family tree alive at the time - modern humans, Denisovans and Neanderthals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1340830/There-THREE-types-ancient-humans-30-000-year-old-finger-fossil-new-species.html

Arelea
21-12-16, 06:15
They wouldn't have been "humerthals", but if you really need a name only "Neandomagnons" because in hybrid species the name of the father makes the first part and the name of the mother the second part.

And in order for this offspring and their descendants to have survived (and been incorporated in modern human/CroMagnon societies), their mothers would have had to be modern human/CroMagnon. Because if their mothers were Neanderthals, they would have disappeared with the predomianntly Neanderthal groups without modern human admixture.

Judith
15-01-17, 23:55
http://www.heritagedaily.com/2016/12/top-10-archaeological-discoveries-of-2016/113678
item 7 on this list is Neanderthal artwork/temple or what?
But it shows that they had AMH concepts too.

and the other items in the list are good too

Sonnenburg
16-01-17, 09:40
I agree. Theory is nothing much, except being Politically Correct...

Sonnenburg
16-01-17, 10:42
Since there is no link to any other Haplogroup...I* is direct Y-DNA descendant from male Neanderthal through Cro-Magnon female, right? They got blue eyes to survive harsh cold from Neanderthal and kept tan skin from mtDNA CroMagnon. Those Neanderthal male who couldn't find a CroMagnon 'wife' - got extinct. Modern I1 and all variations are the 'new Neanderthals' born by CroMagnon mothers and totally became CroMagnons Culturally later mating only with CroMagnon females...thousands of years of mutations and still Y-DNA Neanderthal.
Isn't that wunderbar?
I understand, it's just a speculation...
and what a spectacular speculation.
I hope we'll get solid genetic proof soon.

LeBrok
16-01-17, 16:36
Since there is no link to any other Haplogroup...I* is direct Y-DNA descendant from male Neanderthal through Cro-Magnon female, right? They got blue eyes to survive harsh cold from Neanderthal and kept tan skin from mtDNA CroMagnon. Those Neanderthal male who couldn't find a CroMagnon 'wife' - got extinct. Modern I1 and all variations are the 'new Neanderthals' born by CroMagnon mothers and totally became CroMagnons Culturally later mating only with CroMagnon females...thousands of years of mutations and still Y-DNA Neanderthal.
Isn't that wunderbar?
I understand, it's just a speculation...
and what a spectacular speculation.
I hope we'll get solid genetic proof soon.
Please read this thread from start and find other threads about neanderthals on Eupedia. We discussed all of it in relation to newest research.

Sile
16-01-17, 18:26
I have 1.5% neatherthal and 3.3% Denisovan ...........is there a central-asian link on having both of these ancient ?

I cannot recall Denisovan ever reaching modern Iran or the Ural mountains

Data via both natgeno2 and havard

Megalophias
16-01-17, 18:41
Since there is no link to any other Haplogroup...I* is direct Y-DNA descendant from male Neanderthal through Cro-Magnon female, right?

Not a chance. Haplogroup I is deeply nested within modern human Y DNA.

stevenarmstrong
19-02-17, 23:23
I know that blood type and haplotype show little-to-no correlation. But do we have any way of knowing what blood type or types were prevalent among the various subspecies of Neanderthal?

LeBrok
19-02-17, 23:44
I know that blood type and haplotype show little-to-no correlation. But do we have any way of knowing what blood type or types were prevalent among the various subspecies of Neanderthal?Embrace autosomal DNA. It is so much telling than Y hg or blood type.

stevenarmstrong
20-02-17, 22:48
I have autosomal results from Ancestry.com and FamilyTreeDNA. Perhaps I'm simply ignorant as to what I'm supposed to be looking for, but all it seems to give me is some vague indication of my geographical heritage. It says nothing of my genetic links to Neanderthals. Or am I missing something?

LeBrok
20-02-17, 23:39
I've never done this myself, but I'm positive that there is published neanderthal genome, or neanderthal genes which are in people. You can compare it to yours to see which genes you have. Many of them function is known.
Also you can use GedMatch for some quick comparisons. They have Neanderthal kit # F999902
https://www.gedmatch.com/login1.php

firetown
17-06-17, 19:44
The specimens examined in Spain were blood type O. No rh factor specified.
http://rhesusnegative.net/origins/neanderthals/
The Denisovans, according to the Max Planck Institute (http://www.rhesusnegative.net/staynegative/popular-questions/neanderthals/), were not only rh positive, but +/+ genotype wise:

The Denisova and Altai Neandertal are homozygous for the ancestral “A” variant at position 25629943 on chromosome 1 that determines rhesus type in modern humans. This variant means that both are likely rhesus positive.

... from the informative position that determines
rhesus type in humans, both are homozygous rhesus positive.





I know that blood type and haplotype show little-to-no correlation. But do we have any way of knowing what blood type or types were prevalent among the various subspecies of Neanderthal?

I am curious:
HOW do you know this?

firetown
25-03-18, 17:43
The conclusion that Neanderthal y-DNA being absent from modern man is due to fertility issues makes little sense to me. Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to assume what usually happened when y-DNA is being replaced? I would say Neanderthal men were killed off and the women were taken by those who killed the men. And likely boys and young men were enslaved and treated so badly, that they never had a chance to reproduce: http://www.firetown.com/2018/03/25/neanderthal-y-dna-absent-modern-man/
Why are we assuming that this y-DNA replacement was any different than the usual?

Megalophias
25-03-18, 21:14
Because we don't have Neanderthal mtDNA either. Sauce for the goose.

Mark
26-03-18, 02:54
Another possibly concurrent reason for their Y DNA being absent is that Neanderthal tribes, many having been matriarchal, slowly replaced their males with superior hunters from other non-Neanderthal tribes. Just a hypothesis.

Angela
26-03-18, 03:26
To my knowledge we have no idea whether they had a matriarchal culture. What we do know is that the male hybrids seem to have been unable to reproduce. That would mean the gene flow into us would have been through female hybrids and since no Neanderthal mtDna has survived it might be that the offspring were of Neanderthal males and homo sapiens sapiens females.

Mark
26-03-18, 04:33
To my knowledge we have no idea whether they had a matriarchal culture. What we do know is that the male hybrids seem to have been unable to reproduce. That would mean the gene flow into us would have been through female hybrids and since no Neanderthal mtDna has survived it might be that the offspring were of Neanderthal males and homo sapiens sapiens females.

Makes sense, I’ve read that before yes, that would be hybrid males with non-neanderthal females.

firetown
26-03-18, 13:49
Because we don't have Neanderthal mtDNA either.Not entirely true. Read through Maciamo's posts in this thread.
What we do know is that the male hybrids seem to have been unable to reproduce. We don't know that. This was an assumption made based on Neanderthal y-DNA missing in modern man.

Angela
26-03-18, 14:30
Not entirely true. Read through Maciamo's posts in this thread.We don't know that. This was an assumption made based on Neanderthal y-DNA missing in modern man.

No, that isn't entirely what it was based upon. You should re-read the papers.

firetown
26-03-18, 14:55
No, that isn't entirely what it was based upon. You should re-read the papers.
I have been reading and re-reading them, Angela. And each of them has statements along the lines of

these genetic differences may have triggered the immune system of a pregnant Homo sapiens to attack her foetus if she bred with a Neanderthal.
There is no certainty behind this theory.

Phil95
14-06-18, 10:07
I have read many papers on Neanderthal disappearance : they all explain that they disappear following the arrival of Modern Humans coming out from Africa and there were interbreeding between them resulting in up to 4% DNA sharing with non African today humans.

The 2010 paper from Max Planck institute (Science 328 (5979), 710-722 )concludes to this sharing percentage by comparing Neanderthal genomes of 3 individuals to genomes of 5 present-day humans and not with genomes of Homo Sapiens contemporary to Neanderthals individuals ! I didn't notice that striking detail the first times I read the paper but it makes a big difference : the percentage could have been very much higher if comparison have been made with 40000 years old modern humans !

The study on Oase 1 is very informative : DNA analysis of Oase 1 since 2015 has made a number of significant findings.

About 6-9% of the genome is Neanderthal in origin. This is the highest percentage of archaic introgression found in an anatomically modern human and together with the linkage disequilibrium patterns indicates that Oase 1 had a relatively-recent Neanderthal ancestor – about four to six generations earlier. (Wikipedia)
This fossil has 6-9 % of Neanderthal genome and it is said that he had a Neanderthal ancestor four to six generations earlier (that is between 100 to 200 years earlier so very very close !) It is strange to have still 4% in present days humans after more than 10000 generations !

I have never found a paper with a clear evidence that Neanderthal is not a direct Homo Sapiens ancestor but for me, it is the simplest explanation to all the questions. There was not migration from Africa, Homo Sapiens descends directly from Neanderthal and the differences we see between contemporary individuals are due to a large diversity among these populations. This diversity was likely very large : to illustrate that look at the big differences we have between the 5 skulls from the same site Dmanisi and from the same age (-1.8 Ma). That is so large that they thought there were different species !

I am interested to have references to papers showing strong evidence that we don't descend directly from Neanderthal !

Phil95
14-06-18, 16:31
It is strange to have still 4% in present days humans after more than 10000 generations !



Sorry, it's 1000 generations instead of 10000 !

Ygorcs
14-06-18, 21:01
It is not strange that after 1000 generations there is still 3-4% of Neanderthal DNA. If almost all people who procreated and mixed along all those generations also had some percentage of Neanderthal DNA, that ancestry would have no reason to be pulled out of the genetic pool of non-Africans. If you mix a 10% Neanderthal man with a 8% Neanderthal woman, you'll have a 9% Neanderthal child, and if that child mixes with a 5% Neandertha child, you'll end up with 7% of Neanderthal DNA. The percentages won't drop suddenly unless there had been a really massive replacement of non-Africans by later waves of Africans without any mixing with Neanderthals.

Besides, the fact that modern non-African and modern Subsaharan Africans without any hint of Neanderthal ancestry share a lot more between each other than either of them to Neanderthals from a mere 30,000 years ago (a very short time in bio-evolutionary terms, not enough to make Neanderthals so genetically and phenotypically different from present-day non-Africans) certainly demonstrates that the best explanation is that out-of-Africa people intermixed with Neanderthals in different times and places, and that Neanderthal ancestry was gradually reduced and then stabilized due to the heavy expansion of Basal Eurasian (people who were most similar to other non-Africans, but lacked any Neanderthal mixing at all) in the Late Paleolithic, and due to some negative selection against some Neanderthal-derived genes.

Modern humans share a lot more with modern humans from 30,000-20,000 years ago than to clearly Neanderthal individuals from just before that time, before they got extinct with some traces absorbed by modern humans. If those non-African humans were fully Neanderthal, you'd have to presume that a huge genetic transformation happened in just a few milennia. That just doesn't make sense.

epoch
20-06-18, 17:53
Not entirely true. Read through Maciamo's posts in this thread.We don't know that. This was an assumption made based on Neanderthal y-DNA missing in modern man.

The male infertility issue is based on the fact that the X-chromosome has substantially less Neanderthal on it than non-sexual chromosomes.

See Haldane's rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_rule).

PS: Greg Cochrane (https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/all-one-species-2/) states that he thinks the split between humans and Neanderthals is far to recent for Haldane's Rule to be applied.

Trigger Warning for the weakhearted: Greg Cochrane is on the SPLC (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/1/splc-transferred-millions-offshore-tax-havens/)'s shitlist.

epoch
20-06-18, 18:10
I have read many papers on Neanderthal disappearance : they all explain that they disappear following the arrival of Modern Humans coming out from Africa and there were interbreeding between them resulting in up to 4% DNA sharing with non African today humans.

The 2010 paper from Max Planck institute (Science 328 (5979), 710-722 )concludes to this sharing percentage by comparing Neanderthal genomes of 3 individuals to genomes of 5 present-day humans and not with genomes of Homo Sapiens contemporary to Neanderthals individuals ! I didn't notice that striking detail the first times I read the paper but it makes a big difference : the percentage could have been very much higher if comparison have been made with 40000 years old modern humans !

The study on Oase 1 is very informative : DNA analysis of Oase 1 since 2015 has made a number of significant findings.

About 6-9% of the genome is Neanderthal in origin. This is the highest percentage of archaic introgression found in an anatomically modern human and together with the linkage disequilibrium patterns indicates that Oase 1 had a relatively-recent Neanderthal ancestor – about four to six generations earlier. (Wikipedia)
This fossil has 6-9 % of Neanderthal genome and it is said that he had a Neanderthal ancestor four to six generations earlier (that is between 100 to 200 years earlier so very very close !) It is strange to have still 4% in present days humans after more than 10000 generations !

I have never found a paper with a clear evidence that Neanderthal is not a direct Homo Sapiens ancestor but for me, it is the simplest explanation to all the questions. There was not migration from Africa, Homo Sapiens descends directly from Neanderthal and the differences we see between contemporary individuals are due to a large diversity among these populations. This diversity was likely very large : to illustrate that look at the big differences we have between the 5 skulls from the same site Dmanisi and from the same age (-1.8 Ma). That is so large that they thought there were different species !

I am interested to have references to papers showing strong evidence that we don't descend directly from Neanderthal !

It's done by investigating linkage (dis)equilibrum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkage_disequilibrium). Look it up. It's how you find *unknown* admixtures as well, such as the million year old impuls in Denisova. It's actually far simpler than you think

Phil95
21-06-18, 07:56
It's done by investigating linkage (dis)equilibrium. Look it up. It's how you find *unknown* admixtures as well, such as the million year old impuls in Denisova. It's actually far simpler than you think

If it is what you call a clear evidence, it is anything but clear !
Could you explain with simple words, thank you ?

Sonnenburg
14-08-18, 21:35
That means Neandertal DNA in Haplogroup I1 is from Female that got pregnant by Cro-Magnon male, no? If Neandertal males couldn’t make Cro-Magnon Females pregnant or male offsprings couldn’t survive due to ‘incompatibility’, that would indicate that Cro-Magnon males could get Neanderthal Females pregnant successfully. Is there evidence that Neanderthal males got ‘exterminated’ or legitimately replaced just because of Neanderthal Females ‘preferred’ Cro-Magnon Male as a mate?

bigblob
28-12-18, 11:02
Neanderthal genes still influence the skin colour and hair colour of modern Eurasians. They influence the behaviour and immune system of modern Eurasians and the brain and skull shape of Europeans. Europeans especially are nothing but Neanderthal hybrids. Asians also interbred with two groups of Denisovan.

So why is it so difficult for some peoples to acknowledge they are nothing but Neanderthal hybrids?

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/05/555592707/neanderthal-genes-help-shape-how-many-modern-humans-look

Angela
28-12-18, 18:47
Two percent of our genome makes us Neanderthal/Human hybrids? The vast majority of Neanderthal dna in humans has been purged through selection because it was detrimental, including large chunks of the X chromosome according to a recent paper.

The Neanderthal de-pigmentation genes largely have nothing to do with de-pigmentation in homo sapiens sapiens. The major ones weren't present in Neanderthals.

You really should read all the recent papers before commenting.

bigblob
29-12-18, 05:24
From Eupedia, modern humans likely inerited light skin and hair colours from continous interbreeding with Neanderthals:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neanderthal_facts_and_myths.shtml

This also applies to behaviour, immunity to diseases and according to some scientists, the shape of modern European skull and brain.

So considering that Neanderthal DNA is still influencing the genes of modern humans in the above ways, modern Europeans are nothing but NEANDERTHAL HYBRIDS! Asians also interbred with Denisovan.

Neanderthal looking just like a modern European, his descendants:

https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.cbc.ca%2F1.1911694. 1380870556%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderiva tives%2F16x9_780%2Fhi-neanderthal-852.jpg&sp=ddd94f2820d7d5698abe9a6da59f5bb1

Angela
29-12-18, 06:16
From Eupedia, modern humans likely inerited light skin and hair colours from continous interbreeding with Neanderthals:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neanderthal_facts_and_myths.shtml

This also applies to behaviour, immunity to diseases and according to some scientists, the shape of modern European skull and brain.

So considering that Neanderthal DNA is still influencing the genes of modern humans in the above ways, modern Europeans are nothing but NEANDERTHAL HYBRIDS! Asians also interbred with Denisovan.

Neanderthal looking just like a modern European, his descendants:

https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.cbc.ca%2F1.1911694. 1380870556%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderiva tives%2F16x9_780%2Fhi-neanderthal-852.jpg&sp=ddd94f2820d7d5698abe9a6da59f5bb1

Indeed, and what camera did the photographer use for his time travel? :)

You have understood neither the article nor my posts above.

Try again. I suggest some re-reading of both. Please read the recent Neanderthal papers again as well.

Agudot
29-12-18, 19:00
Yo siempre he ledo que los cruces sapiens neandertales se produjeron en Oriente Medio

bigblob
07-01-19, 11:50
Blonde hair, white skin and blue eyes are only indigenous to Europe and found nowhere else. How can it be you have modern humans living in the exact same areas where the blonde, light skin, blue eyed Neanderthal lived and then claim they both developed light skin, blonde hair and blue eyes seperately? Its absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes I think most scientists are idiots that publish rubbish because they have to publish something.

Finally, some scientists have been claiming, its likely that modern Europeans likely got their genes for light hair,skin and eyes from Neanderthals because Neanderthals also had those traits. Absolutely right.

Gnarl
07-01-19, 12:10
Blonde hair, white skin and blue eyes are only indigenous to Europe and found nowhere else. How can it be you have modern humans living in the exact same areas where the blonde, light skin, blue eyed Neanderthal lived and then claim they both developed light skin, blonde hair and blue eyes seperately? Its absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes I think most scientists are idiots that publish rubbish because they have to publish something.

Finally, some scientists have been claiming, its likely that modern Europeans likely got their genes for light hair,skin and eyes from Neanderthals because Neanderthals also had those traits. Absolutely right.

We know which genes cause light hair and blue eyes in humans. And we have high-coverage Neanderthal genomes. As far as I know we do not find the genes that produce light pigmentation in humans in the Neanderthal genome.

Neanderthals probably developed light pigmentation for the same reason humans did -because its an advantageous environmental adaptation in northern latitudes. But separately.

Angela
07-01-19, 18:02
Convergent evolution of beneficial traits is common in nature. That includes humans. For example, East Asians are relatively fair skinned, but it comes from their own de-pigmentation snps, not those of West Eurasians.

See:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6617325_Genetic_Evidence_for_the_Convergent_Evolut ion_of_Light_Skin_in_Europeans_and_East_Asians

Ygorcs
07-01-19, 19:06
From Eupedia, modern humans likely inerited light skin and hair colours from continous interbreeding with Neanderthals:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neanderthal_facts_and_myths.shtml

This also applies to behaviour, immunity to diseases and according to some scientists, the shape of modern European skull and brain.

So considering that Neanderthal DNA is still influencing the genes of modern humans in the above ways, modern Europeans are nothing but NEANDERTHAL HYBRIDS! Asians also interbred with Denisovan.

Neanderthal looking just like a modern European, his descendants:

https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.cbc.ca%2F1.1911694. 1380870556%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderiva tives%2F16x9_780%2Fhi-neanderthal-852.jpg&sp=ddd94f2820d7d5698abe9a6da59f5bb1

You seem to have missed most of the scientific papers on that topic in the last years. Humans DID INHERIT genes related to behavior (of course a tiny proportion of all the genes associated with human behavior), as well as to skin and hair color, but NOT JUST those that are associated with loss of pigmentation, but also some of those associated with heavier pigmentation (darker color). Besides, and most importantly, NONE OF THOSE gene variants were among the most relevant and impactful gene alleles that caused light skin, light hair and other traits in modern humans. None. Therefore the modern phenotype of humans was NOT heavily influenced by Neanderthals, but they had a very very minor contribution, indeed.

Well, if you think that Neanderthal man looks exactly like a modern European, I'm afraid all you're loking at is the hair and skin color. He does not look like average Europeans at all, and that's pretty obvious and visible. Besides, all those "Neanderthals" out there are preconceived reconstructions made by artists. The latest findings of DNA studies have clearly established that Neanderthals probably had a range of skin, hair and eye colors roughly like modern Eurasians also do. Therefore, there were very probably black-haired, darker-skinned Neanderthals, too, but the reconstructions are clearly based on the assumption that, because they were very northern hominins, then they must all have looked white and blonde. But even if they were, well, that's exactly a classic case of convergent evolution, especially because we ALREADY KNOW that the looks-related genes Eurasians inherited from them were not that significant to us moderners. If blonde hair, blue eye or very light skin had indeed come from Neanderthals, we'd also expect East Asians to have much more of those traits, because it is in East Asians that we actually find the highest proportion of Neanderthal ancestry.

I find it kind of ludicrous that some Europeans are talking so much about this "Neanderthal ancestry in Europeans". It's not "in Europeans". It's in non-Africans as a whole, and Europeans aren't even those with more archaic human admixture, not even Neanderthal-specific ancestry. East Asians, Central Asians, Native Americans, Middle Easterners, South Asians, all of them have partial, even if invariably tiny, Neanderthal ancestry, and yet we don't see many non-European people supposedly "looking just like Neanderthals". Europeans as a whole are NO OUTLIERS at all in that respect.

Like Angela, I find it a bit bizarre that, instead of merely acknowledging archaic hominin introgression in modern Europeans (actually in all modern humans, including Africans), people think it's reasonable to talk of Europeans as "AMH-Neanderthal hybrids" when the average Neanderthal contribution to the modern European genetic pool is, what?, around 1.5% (and, if anything, all non-Subsaharan-Africans would be such "hybrids", not just Europeans). So a 98.5% European man with 1.5% Subsaharan ancestry is "multiracial", or a white American with 1.5% Native American ancestry is maybe a "Native American hybrid"? I can't follow that reasoning...

Ygorcs
07-01-19, 19:18
Blonde hair, white skin and blue eyes are only indigenous to Europe and found nowhere else. How can it be you have modern humans living in the exact same areas where the blonde, light skin, blue eyed Neanderthal lived and then claim they both developed light skin, blonde hair and blue eyes seperately? Its absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes I think most scientists are idiots that publish rubbish because they have to publish something.

Finally, some scientists have been claiming, its likely that modern Europeans likely got their genes for light hair,skin and eyes from Neanderthals because Neanderthals also had those traits. Absolutely right.

1) Of course white skin, light hair and light eyes exist outside Europe, and in the ancient DNA record the main skin-lightening alleles are found earlier in West Asia than in much of Europe, particularly east of Ukraine. The frequency of skin-lightening alleles in most of Europe actually increased a lot after the West Asian farmers migrated into the "core" of Europe. That premise of your reasoning is totally flawed and extremely outdated.

2) There is no evidence at all that the main blue eye-related alleles derive from Neanderthals. It actually looks much more probable that it's much more recent. Oh, and the gene for blue eyes was also found in the ancient (Chalcolithic and Neolithic) Middle East associated with 100% non-European autosomal admixtures.

3) Neanderthals actually also lived in all of West Asia and Central Asia (and certainly in North Asia, too, because a 1st generation Neanderthal+Denisovan hybrid was found recently in Siberia), so it seems your "Europe = Neanderthals = Modern Europeans" equivalence is not that accurate either.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7b/4e/f3/7b4ef389667b5616fe3aa8e0a195805c.jpg

4) "Some scientists" are just wrong and have seen their hypothesis based on totally faulty and unscientific reasoning ("Europeans must have derived XYZ from Neanderthals because they also had XYZ" - what an utter phallacy!) continuously debunked in the last years as science advances rapidly.

Angela
07-01-19, 20:01
^^
Relatively new reconstruction of Neanderthal "Altamura Man" from southern Italy.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/27/18/338F8A0300000578-0-image-a-2_1461779277660.jpg

Even with hair cut, cleaned up, and wearing modern clothes (which would have to be custom made), there is no way this person would pass as a modern human.

If homo sapiens sapiens helped drive them to extinction, I'm sorry about that, but those are the facts, just as it's a fact that we had to purge most of their genes because they were harmful. Not all admixture is ultimately beneficial.

Megalophias
07-01-19, 22:00
Blonde hair, white skin and blue eyes are only indigenous to Europe and found nowhere else. How can it be you have modern humans living in the exact same areas where the blonde, light skin, blue eyed Neanderthal lived and then claim they both developed light skin, blonde hair and blue eyes seperately? Its absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes I think most scientists are idiots that publish rubbish because they have to publish something.
What actual evidence - rather than artists' guessing - do we have for Neanderthal skin, hair, or eye colour?

As far as Neanderthal light pigmentation alleles, the one with highest frequency in modern populations I know of (Val92Met in MC1R) is most common in East Asia and peaks in Taiwanese Aborigines. Most people from the Arctic to the Tropics have dark hair and eyes, blue eyes are rather West Eurasian, blond hair is famously found in Melanesia. What parallel dimension are you from where blond hair, blue eyes, and light skin are restricted to Europe? I know of no evidence that light eyes or hair (as opposed to light skin) are under selection at high latitudes, so while we can reasonably argue that Neanderthals ought to have been relatively light-skinned, we can hardly claim they ought to have been blue-eyed and blond-haired.

Neither Neanderthals nor high latitudes are specific to Europe, so I can see no reason to expect that Neanderthal ancestry or adaptive alleles from them ought to be specific to Europe today.

Punish Them 911
08-01-19, 04:49
^^
Relatively new reconstruction of Neanderthal "Altamura Man" from southern Italy.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/27/18/338F8A0300000578-0-image-a-2_1461779277660.jpg
Even with hair cut, cleaned up, and wearing modern clothes (which would have to be custom made), there is no way this person would pass as a modern human.
If homo sapiens sapiens helped drive them to extinction, I'm sorry about that, but those are the facts, just as it's a fact that we had to purge most of their genes because they were harmful. Not all admixture is ultimately beneficial.
I haven't seen any evidence at all that Neanderthal genes were mostly harmful and had to be "purged". For +50,000 years everyone in Europe and Asia was a Neanderthal hybrid with 10-75% Neanderthal DNA. By 45,000 YBP we have mostly modern-looking remains that are still autosomally 10% Neanderthal. Neanderthal ancestry in middle Siberia has decreased by perhaps half a percentage point since 18,000 YBP, if the remains in Afontova Gora are anything to go by. That could be due to European admixture. Neanderthal ancestry pretty much hasn't decreased in Asia in any significant way that indicates natural selection against Neanderthal alleles.
This is quite remarkable given that Neanderthals never made up more than 4% of Earth's population at any given time. According to John Hawks the entire world's population of Neanderthals at any given time could have been seated comfortably at at an NFL superbowl stadium. The amount of Neanderthal ancestry in modern humans is actually higher than what one would expect; given the very shallow populatuon size of Neanderthals as compared with modern humans.
Unadmixed modern humans (west-central Africans and western Negritos) have lagged behind immensely and suffered a kind of "purge" of their own, if you will, throughout recorded history. One wonders if you were given a choice to be born black at any given time in history, vs being born white or Asian with some Neanderthal ancestry, which would you choose? Clearly, Neanderthal ancestry was critical to the current standard of living and status that you enjoy.

ToBeOrNotToBe
08-01-19, 04:54
^^
Relatively new reconstruction of Neanderthal "Altamura Man" from southern Italy.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/27/18/338F8A0300000578-0-image-a-2_1461779277660.jpg

Even with hair cut, cleaned up, and wearing modern clothes (which would have to be custom made), there is no way this person would pass as a modern human.

If homo sapiens sapiens helped drive them to extinction, I'm sorry about that, but those are the facts, just as it's a fact that we had to purge most of their genes because they were harmful. Not all admixture is ultimately beneficial.

This might sound horrible, but he definitely passes as more human than most Australian Aborigines (who are the most archaic modern humans):

https://1k2ybq3z60lnwp7cs3fp6idy-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Lena-and-Rosie-Pula.jpg

http://resources.fahcsia.gov.au/annualreport/2011/images/Case-Study-1.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/hK13hYY.png

Punish Them 911
08-01-19, 05:12
Neanderthals actually had less primitive faces than modern humans:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170214-your-face-is-probably-more-primitive-than-a-neanderthals

The truly human face is primitive -- hollow cheeks, a short, flat nose, low orbits, a high FWHR, cheekbones shifted forward -- these are the primitive features found on early hominids such as erectus.

Neanderthals had newly evolved traits such as inflated maxillae, tall and projecting noses, high and large orbits, low FWHR, retreating zygomatic bones.

Punish Them 911
08-01-19, 05:18
When compared to Neanderthal skulls, modern human skulls just look like trash, to be honest.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5265ca21/turbine/la-sci-sn-neanderthal-missing-link-20131021-001/600/600x400

https://aaronjstutz.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/amh-neandertal-skulls.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/12/article-0-189B452F000005DC-982_634x417.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjqSYhmXcAE6wFO.jpg


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julia_Galway-Witham2/publication/317834005/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Skull-shape-differences-Structural-differences-in-ancient-skulls-can-illuminate_Q320.jpg

Megalophias
08-01-19, 05:24
Well that went downhill fast.

bigblob
08-01-19, 06:06
Yes, Neanderthals did live all over Eurasia, but its likely the lighter skin ones lived in Central/Northern Europe, just like the majority of blue eyed light skin, blondes:
Map of blondes:
http://jorian.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/blond-haired-in-europe-map.jpg

bigblob
08-01-19, 06:17
Although Asians interbred with Neanderthals, they also interbred with 2 different groups of Denisovan, so its not surprising they don't look like Europeans who only interbred with Neanderthals.

bigblob
08-01-19, 06:22
The oldest remains found so far with light skin, hair and eyes was found in Motala Sweden and dated 7700 years:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-aba0dc25afb841b00fa3db69c558594d-c

bigblob
08-01-19, 06:39
So how did Neanderthal genes affect modern humans:

They affect the behaviour of modern humans, whether you are a night person who likes to nap during the day. Addiction, depression, type 2 diabetes, Corns disease and many other diseases.

They affect the immune system of modern Eurasians.

THEY AFFECT THE SKIN COLOUR OF MODERN EUROPEANS and Asians.

70% of Europeans possess the Neanderthal gene for skin colour. BNC2 which affects skin colour amongst other traits,
is found in 70% of Europeans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genetics#Interbreeding_with_modern_hum ans

bigblob
08-01-19, 06:46
Later Neanderthals resembled modern Europeans. A neanderthal was found in Italy that had the same chin shape as modern humans. He likely had a Neanderthal mother and a modern human father.

There are many hybrid modern humans/Neanderthals that have been found which is why I believe Neanderthals were assimilated into the modern human population because of interbreeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)#In_humans

Punish Them 911
08-01-19, 07:41
Later Neanderthals resembled modern Europeans. A neanderthal was found in Italy that had the same chin shape as modern humans. He likely had a Neanderthal mother and a modern human father.



No, that's wrong and outdated. You're referring to the Riparo Mezzena mandible which was described as a Neanderthal-modern human hybrid in a terrible paper by Silvana Condemi (https://www.livescience.com/28270-neanderthal-skeleton-provides-evidence-of-interbreeding-with-humans.html). They re-tested those remains years later and found that they weren't Neanderthal at all, in fact, the mandible was dated to the post-glacial period and had lower Neanderthal admixture than most modern Europeans. There has never been evidence of a modern human male interbreeding with a Neanderthal female.


https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29144



We also performed a more detailed investigation of the lithic assemblage of layer I. Surprisingly we found that the Riparo Mezzena mandible is not from a Neanderthal but belonged to an anatomically modern human. Furthermore, we found no evidence for the presence of Neanderthal remains among 11 of the 13 cranial and post-cranial fragments re-investigated in this study.

Punish Them 911
08-01-19, 07:55
Yes, Neanderthals did live all over Eurasia, but its likely the lighter skin ones lived in Central/Northern Europe, just like the majority of blue eyed light skin, blondes:
Map of blondes:
http://jorian.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/blond-haired-in-europe


There is no evidence of a Neanderthal ever having had blond hair or blue eyes, or even light (in the modern European sense) skin.

European Neanderthals had relatively dark pigmentation. (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/03/were-some-neandertals-brown-eyed-girls)

Blond hair evolved in eastern Siberia and spread to northern Europe by way of Ancient North Eurasian admixture; blond hair/blue eyes were also more common in Siberia and central Asia than in Europe until about 900 A.D.


Those Motala HGs you posted would have been brown eyed, black haired and black skinned just like their glacial-period European ancestors were, before they got mixed with Ancient North Eurasians/Eastern Hunter Gatherers. Lighter phenotype populations existed much futher east before Motala.

Gnarl
08-01-19, 10:44
THEY AFFECT THE SKIN COLOUR OF MODERN EUROPEANS and Asians.

70% of Europeans possess the Neanderthal gene for skin colour. BNC2 which affects skin colour amongst other traits,
is found in 70% of Europeans.

Light skin pigmentation in humans is associated with the genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. These genes came with us out of Africa, where they were present in low numbers. During the human populations stay in Siberia and Scandinavia during and just after the Ice Age they increased sharply in frequency in some populations in those areas, probably because they provided an adaptive advantage in those environments. Clustering is generally far faster as an adaptive mechanism than mutation.

Basonuclin 2 is indeed from the Neanderthals and involved in skin pigmentation, but not in the sense of being causative for light pigmentation, but in the way of being involved in freckling.

markod
08-01-19, 12:31
I haven't seen any evidence at all that Neanderthal genes were mostly harmful and had to be "purged". For +50,000 years everyone in Europe and Asia was a Neanderthal hybrid with 10-75% Neanderthal DNA. By 45,000 YBP we have mostly modern-looking remains that are still autosomally 10% Neanderthal. Neanderthal ancestry in middle Siberia has decreased by perhaps half a percentage point since 18,000 YBP, if the remains in Afontova Gora are anything to go by. That could be due to European admixture. Neanderthal ancestry pretty much hasn't decreased in Asia in any significant way that indicates natural selection against Neanderthal alleles.
This is quite remarkable given that Neanderthals never made up more than 4% of Earth's population at any given time. According to John Hawks the entire world's population of Neanderthals at any given time could have been seated comfortably at at an NFL superbowl stadium. The amount of Neanderthal ancestry in modern humans is actually higher than what one would expect; given the very shallow populatuon size of Neanderthals as compared with modern humans.
Unadmixed modern humans (west-central Africans and western Negritos) have lagged behind immensely and suffered a kind of "purge" of their own, if you will, throughout recorded history. One wonders if you were given a choice to be born black at any given time in history, vs being born white or Asian with some Neanderthal ancestry, which would you choose? Clearly, Neanderthal ancestry was critical to the current standard of living and status that you enjoy.

Purifying selection disproportionately affected Neanderthal alleles that modulated the tissues of the brain and the testes. This means that the Neanderthals were, by humans standards, likely rather primitive. It's our cognition and (especially male) sexual behaviour that most differentiate us from other animals.


Brain regions and testes exhibited significant downregulation of Neanderthal alleles relative to other tissues, consistent with natural selection influencing the tissue-specific regulatory landscape. Our study demonstrates that Neanderthal- inherited sequences are not silent remnants of ancient interbreeding, but have measurable impacts on gene expression that contribute to variation in modern human phenotypes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6219754/

Angela
08-01-19, 16:01
I haven't seen any evidence at all that Neanderthal genes were mostly harmful and had to be "purged". For +50,000 years everyone in Europe and Asia was a Neanderthal hybrid with 10-75% Neanderthal DNA. By 45,000 YBP we have mostly modern-looking remains that are still autosomally 10% Neanderthal. Neanderthal ancestry in middle Siberia has decreased by perhaps half a percentage point since 18,000 YBP, if the remains in Afontova Gora are anything to go by. That could be due to European admixture. Neanderthal ancestry pretty much hasn't decreased in Asia in any significant way that indicates natural selection against Neanderthal alleles.
This is quite remarkable given that Neanderthals never made up more than 4% of Earth's population at any given time. According to John Hawks the entire world's population of Neanderthals at any given time could have been seated comfortably at at an NFL superbowl stadium. The amount of Neanderthal ancestry in modern humans is actually higher than what one would expect; given the very shallow populatuon size of Neanderthals as compared with modern humans.
Unadmixed modern humans (west-central Africans and western Negritos) have lagged behind immensely and suffered a kind of "purge" of their own, if you will, throughout recorded history. One wonders if you were given a choice to be born black at any given time in history, vs being born white or Asian with some Neanderthal ancestry, which would you choose? Clearly, Neanderthal ancestry was critical to the current standard of living and status that you enjoy.

Then you clearly haven't read any of the numerous scientific papers of the last years. Just as one example, nature purged huge portions of our X chromosome of their dna.

Even of the dna that's left, not much of it is beneficial. You think it's just great that they left us a legacy of increased propensity to depression, addiction to tobacco, auto-immune disorders, to just mention a few? Please.

I would provide a list of the papers, but clearly you want to persist in your ignorance, for whatever reason, so why bother.

To all reading this thread: Ignore this poster. He is only interested in posting misleading information.

Megalophias
08-01-19, 16:04
I'm beginning to suspect that Punish Them 911 is a parody account.

Angela
08-01-19, 16:09
^^So am I, and he's going to be out of here pretty fast if he doesn't stop disrupting this thread.

Gnarl
08-01-19, 16:16
He does post some reasonable stuff too. It may be that he is just excessively invested in making the facts fit his narrative of being part of a superior hybrid species.

Punish Them 911
08-01-19, 23:35
Purifying selection disproportionately affected Neanderthal alleles that modulated the tissues of the brain and the testes


We have no way of knowing that. The coverage of the Neanderthal genome is very limited so far and in the future we may discover that we DO have Neanderthal testes genes. Remember that not a single Levantine Neanderthal has been sequenced yet and even the genome we have is far from complete.


Basically, your testes genes claim is based on WILDLY speculatory evidence. There's nothing conclusive.


As for brain genes that's just patently false; we are very rich in cognitive genes from Neanderthals and new "discoveries" are made every year, overturning the speculations of the previous year:


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/neanderthal-genes-influence-contemporary-humans-skull-shape-brain-size-180971043/



This means that the Neanderthals were, by humans standards, likely rather primitive.


No it doesn't! This is infuriating. You are an idiot if you come to this conclusion based on flimsy and wild speculations about incomplete genomes. The fossil record already PROVES Neanderthals were less primitive. Even if their intelligence genes had been "purged" that would not make them primitive. There is evidence of rapidly decreasing IQ and increasing primitiveness in our own time.

Punish Them 911
08-01-19, 23:48
.
Even of the dna that's left, not much of it is beneficial. You think it's just great that they left us a legacy of increased propensity to depression, addiction to tobacco, auto-immune disorders, to just mention a few? Please.

You have clearly allowed yourself to be brainwashed by media reports about Neanderthal DNA. Nicotene consumption is a personal choice and depression is more dependent on one's environment (sedentary lifestyle, social media consumption, etc) than one's genes. There is no evidence for Neanderthal-admixed populations suffering depression prior to the late 20th century, except for possible individual examples among the leisured upper strata of societies, in earlier times.

As for autoimmune disorders, I am sure they are few and far inbetween compared to the number that already existed in modern humans and which have mutated off of modern human alleles. Basically you're grasping for straws, looking for any little flaw you can find in Neanderthal DNA to justify your superstition that they were "primitive" or "bad", all while ignoring the positives (including positives of the very genes related to the things you mentioned) and the fact that non-Africans appear to have lived better lives than Africans for... Ever.

Angela
09-01-19, 02:17
You have clearly allowed yourself to be brainwashed by media reports about Neanderthal DNA. Nicotene consumption is a personal choice and depression is more dependent on one's environment (sedentary lifestyle, social media consumption, etc) than one's genes. There is no evidence for Neanderthal-admixed populations suffering depression prior to the late 20th century, except for possible individual examples among the leisured upper strata of societies, in earlier times.

As for autoimmune disorders, I am sure they are few and far inbetween compared to the number that already existed in modern humans and which have mutated off of modern human alleles. Basically you're grasping for straws, looking for any little flaw you can find in Neanderthal DNA to justify your superstition that they were "primitive" or "bad", all while ignoring the positives (including positives of the very genes related to the things you mentioned) and the fact that non-Africans appear to have lived better lives than Africans for... Ever.

Everything I said is supported by scientific evidence presented in numerous recent papers. I don't read MEDIA reports. I read papers. I recommend it.

Your opinions, on the other hand, are contradicted by science.

I don't debate people who refuse to read the relevant scientific papers but instead operate out of some emotional agenda.

Stop spamming thread after thread with provocative, clearly a-scientific comments. You are annoying and insulting valued members.

Am I clear?

bigblob
09-01-19, 10:24
Out of date, out of date thats all I ever get on this site, although this person puts up a link that is dated 2012. I use genuine scientific links
and so Im rapidly coming to the conclusion that some people on this site, refuse to accept reality:

From Mr Maciamo Hay founder of Eupedia:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neanderthal_facts_and_myths.shtml

KarenJed
21-12-19, 22:31
I dont think the heathen times were that primitive either. The Vikings had a good way of sailing the seas and the Romans also knew more than many think....

Alulkoy
01-01-20, 08:08
I don’t know if you’ve modified your thinking but the NA tribes with and without Agriculture all have high instances of Diabetes 2. The most common reason why they have diabetes is because of the American diet of highly processed foods they are forced to eat that started with their being removed to unproductive lands on reservations where they couldn’t plant their crops. I don’t know what you think you know about NAs but most of them were agricultural thousands of years before Columbus even existed.