PDA

View Full Version : Non-African populations inherited substantial X-chromosome segments from Neanderthal



Maciamo
26-01-11, 13:59
Oxford Journals : An X-linked haplotype of Neandertal origin is present among all non-African populations (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/01/25/molbev.msr024.short)


Recent work on the Neandertal genome has raised the possibility of admixture between Neandertals and the expanding population of H. sapiens who left Africa between 80 Kya and 50 Kya to colonize the rest of the world. Here we provide evidence of a notable presence (9% overall) of a Neandertal-derived X chromosome segment among all contemporary human populations outside Africa. Our analysis of 6092 X-chromosomes from all inhabited continents supports earlier contentions that a mosaic of lineages of different time depths and different geographic provenance could have contributed to the genetic constitution of modern humans. It indicates a very early admixture between expanding African migrants and Neandertals prior to or very early on the route of the out-of-Africa expansion that led to the successful colonization of the planet.

This is another blow on those who claimed that humanity descends exclusively from African Homo Sapiens. 9% is more than I expected, and this is just an average for Eurasia, Oceania and the Americas. According to the map at the bottom of the article, the Neanderthal haplotype B0006 exceeds 25% of the population among Native Americans from the west coast of the USA and Canada. On the other hand it is virtually absent from East Asia, Indonesia and Papua-New Guinea. In Europe, the region of Serbia and Albania appears to have the lowest Neanderthal admixture, in the continuity of the Levant and Egypt. This would be consistent with the higher percentage of the African haplogroup E1b1b.

Marianne
26-01-11, 14:10
So from what I can see on the map (I didn't read the whole article yet) it seems that the Balkans and central/south Italy (?!) have the lowest Neanderthal admixture in Europe, but Greece is colored darker (between 12% and 16% ?!), same as France maybe?

How is that explained? Were there Neanderthals residing in Greece back then? Greece has similar Y-DNA admixture as the rest of the Balkans and Italy. So how can this be possible?

Is there a picture of the map with better resolution?

LeBrok
26-01-11, 17:18
It feels good to have own logic and believes confirmed. :)
I didn't expect this to be so substantial though.
Very interesting indeed.

Eochaidh
27-01-11, 01:12
This is so interesting, but that map is so frustrating.

It looks like most of Europe is between 10% and 16%. I read some time ago that Chinese Anthropologists believed that Europeans were descended from Neanderthals because we have big noses like them. Looks like they were right.

What seems very odd though is that far western North America is so high and far eastern Asia is so low. Could Native Americans have descended from a very small population which was unusually high? It's weird.

Regulus
27-01-11, 01:49
I thought that a complete elimination of the Neanderthals was unlikely.
The results are very interesting.

how yes no 2
27-01-11, 02:11
they did step on some common genetics, but I am not sure whether to believe that is legacy of neandertals. I wouldnot bet on it.

I would not relate it directly to haplogroup E, as other haplogroup E dominant areas n Euroasia and north Africa show higher spread of this haplotype... and Greece seems to be hotspot of the admixture while it has high percentage of haplogroup E....besides Red sea area is not to much different from rest of Saudi Arabian peninsula concerning Y-DNA, while this map shows quite a difference....so, whatever those results point to, it is not really directly mappable to Y-DNA spreads...

For me it is interesting that admixture in south Slavs is similar (much less than in the rest of Euroasia) to Asia minor and Red sea area, and to Sogdiana & northwest China area.... those areas I relate to Seneca's Serians whom I consider to be proto-Serbs....

LeBrok
27-01-11, 03:07
Possibly we didn't inherit any Y haplo from them. The paper talks about maternal X.
Though I didn't have time to read it yet.

Marianne
27-01-11, 20:32
Possibly we didn't inherit any Y haplo from them. The paper talks about maternal X.
Though I didn't have time to read it yet.

Then it makes more sense that Greece seems to have the same coloring as Western Europe while it has similar Y-DNA with Albania and Serbia, who have the lowest Neanderthal admixture according to the map.

Michael Folkesson
27-01-11, 22:44
This is all so very exciting findings. It seems to support the hypothesis that they disappeared so very quickly because of large scale interbreeding, meaning that they are still here and that they are - in part - us.

The most intriguing is the high amount of Neanderthal genes in native North America. According to Spencer Wells, author of Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, the populations of the Americas stem from only a small group of 10 to 20 people, originating from central Asia. These facts considered, this seem to indicate that the peoples of central Asia originally had a much greater level of Neanderthal admixture, that has since been diluted - possibly by continuous migration out of Africa.

Just my thoughts.

Carlitos
27-01-11, 23:37
I do not think that takes a long time that the news is denied because of genetics in this then there are those who cast the bells ringing, I do not know how excited I know not how many, do not think those poor monsters with mixed feelings anyone, least by news of this nature is likely within 2 months is denied, beaten and trampled as a sensational story absurd to say the worst.

Michael Folkesson
27-01-11, 23:43
@Carlitos
I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that this is a "cold fusion"-statement? What are the "poor monsters"?

Carlitos
27-01-11, 23:55
Michael €

Of course.

They were the poor monsters, how can someone even think that the modern human gene can take one of those terrible things, but yes, you can use the same imagination that killed the monsters to imagine themselves to be truly human beings end self-destructing.

Garrick
28-01-11, 01:31
Maciamo
Extraordinary findings.

Generally, the low percent in Europe, I would expect higher.

And not only Albania and Serbia, but also Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary etc. are low percents although the map is small and it would be good to be higher.

But I don't see connection with E1b1b?

In Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia E1b1b is not high <20%, but in some other countries E1b1b is a higher and they have more marked red on the map.

East Asia or South Brazil and Argentina are without E1b1b but the color on the map is almost white.

These are probably other reasons, and more knowledge will be gained through future studies.

how yes no 2
28-01-11, 03:17
ok, if the research about admixture of neandertals is correct, than the purest human race are black people of Africa, while among least pure human races are most of white people of Europe....

LeBrok
28-01-11, 03:59
Lol, the confusion started. Home sapience and Neanderthals had common ancestor about 1-2 million years ago. After that time they united again in one species. What's not pure about this? :shocked:

Who do you mean by pure humans? Home Sapience, Cro Magnon (I think they were Croatian tribe BTW, :wary2:), Neanderthals, Homo Erectus (that's what my wife calls me :grin:)?

I know what you meant, just having some fun with it. :)

Maciamo
28-01-11, 08:37
Michael €

Of course.

They were the poor monsters, how can someone even think that the modern human gene can take one of those terrible things, but yes, you can use the same imagination that killed the monsters to imagine themselves to be truly human beings end self-destructing.

I think you don't know much about Neanderthal. May I suggest you have a look at this : Neanderthal : facts and myths (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24894).

Maciamo
28-01-11, 08:47
And not only Albania and Serbia, but also Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary etc. are low percents although the map is small and it would be good to be higher.

But I don't see connection with E1b1b?

In Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia E1b1b is not high <20%, but in some other countries E1b1b is a higher and they have more marked red on the map.


When one reads a map like this it is important to look at the dots, which represent the samples with actual data. For Eastern Europe, there are data points in Poland, Serbia, Greece and Russia, but none in other countries. The author therefore had to speculate about the percentages in surrounding areas. They assumed that ex-Yugoslavia would be a somewhat homogeneous region genetically, which is very far from the truth when we look at Y-DNA frequencies. Bosnia and Croatia are hotspots for native European haplogroup I2a2, while southern Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia and northern Greece are a big hotspot for the African haplogroup E1b1b. I think the map is just distorted because of this mistaken assumption that Serbia equals Yugoslavia. Likewise, Greece is far from homogeneous and if the sample DNA was taken from a region rich in haplogroup R, I or J but poor in E (e.g. Crete), I would expect a fairly high percentage of Neanderthal admixture. I doubt that the dots were placed exactly where the samples came from. I also expect to find considerable interpersonal variations within Europe, especially in countries with a high genetic diversity.

Garrick
28-01-11, 14:38
When one reads a map like this it is important to look at the dots, which represent the samples with actual data. For Eastern Europe, there are data points in Poland, Serbia, Greece and Russia, but none in other countries. The author therefore had to speculate about the percentages in surrounding areas. They assumed that ex-Yugoslavia would be a somewhat homogeneous region genetically, which is very far from the truth when we look at Y-DNA frequencies. Bosnia and Croatia are hotspots for native European haplogroup I2a2, while southern Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia and northern Greece are a big hotspot for the African haplogroup E1b1b. I think the map is just distorted because of this mistaken assumption that Serbia equals Yugoslavia. Likewise, Greece is far from homogeneous and if the sample DNA was taken from a region rich in haplogroup R, I or J but poor in E (e.g. Crete), I would expect a fairly high percentage of Neanderthal admixture. I doubt that the dots were placed exactly where the samples came from. I also expect to find considerable interpersonal variations within Europe, especially in countries with a high genetic diversity.

Maciamo
Thanks for the clarification.

If you believe this has to do with the distribution of haplogroups E, then the data for Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia should have more red color.

In Bosnia I was most represented in the Balkans but also I is highly in Serbia:

Serbia (Mirabal et al, 2010) I 48%, R 19%, E 17%.

For Croatia, peak for I is Dalmatia, but according to Pericic et al (2005) R1a is more common in Croatia than I.

But in any case for all three countries, the map will be changed, and probably for Romania and Hungary.

But the question remains why the East Asia and the southwestern part of Latin America are white on the map when there is no E haplogroup.

So probably one of the the reason is yet insufficient data and it is possible that there are other reasons.

Maciamo
28-01-11, 17:38
Maciamo
Thanks for the clarification.

If you believe this has to do with the distribution of haplogroups E, then the data for Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia should have more red color.

In Bosnia I was most represented in the Balkans but also I is highly in Serbia:

Serbia (Mirabal et al, 2010) I 48%, R 19%, E 17%.

For Croatia, peak for I is Dalmatia, but according to Pericic et al (2005) R1a is more common in Croatia than I.

But in any case for all three countries, the map will be changed, and probably for Romania and Hungary.

But the question remains why the East Asia and the southwestern part of Latin America are white on the map when there is no E haplogroup.

So probably one of the the reason is yet insufficient data and it is possible that there are other reasons.


I don't think that the percentage of I, J, R1a or R1b is very important. They probably all share similar Neanderthal admixture. What makes all the difference is the percentage of haplogroup E, and Serbia has a relatively high percentage by European standards.

Garrick
28-01-11, 18:59
I don't think that the percentage of I, J, R1a or R1b is very important. They probably all share similar Neanderthal admixture. What makes all the difference is the percentage of haplogroup E, and Serbia has a relatively high percentage by European standards.

Maciamo

Clearly, you are looking at Europe as a whole and this is the right approach.

I was in this observation first focused on the Balkans, where E is more pronounced:

Croatia 5.6% (Pericic et al, 2005),

Bosnia 10.1% (Pericic et al, 2005),

Serbia 17.3% (Mirabal et al, 2010),

Bulgaria 20.7% (Cruciani et al, 2004),

Romania 21.4% (Cruciani et al, 2004),

Macedonia 24.1% (Pericic et al, 2005),

Montenegro 27% (Mirabal et al 2010),

Albania Tosk 28.10% (Ferri et al, 2010),

Albania Gege, 41.21% (Ferri et al, 2010),

Kosovo 45,6% (Pericic et al).


If you think that I, J, R1a and R1b probably share a similar admixture of Neanderthal, it makes sense that due to the influence E in the Balkans decreasing percentages comparing to the rest of Europe.

how yes no 2
28-01-11, 21:09
Lol, the confusion started. Home sapience and Neanderthals had common ancestor about 1-2 million years ago. After that time they united again in one species. What's not pure about this? :shocked:
humans are one branch, Neanderthals are separate branch...
according to the research we talk about, there was some cross-breading between species, but that just mean that some modern people have partly hybrid origin.... while black Africans remained pure human race.... there is no such a thing as uniting of species...




When one reads a map like this it is important to look at the dots, which represent the samples with actual data. For Eastern Europe, there are data points in Poland, Serbia, Greece and Russia, but none in other countries.
.....
reece is far from homogeneous and if the sample DNA was taken from a region rich in haplogroup R, I or J but poor in E (e.g. Crete), I would expect a fairly high percentage of Neanderthal admixture.
....
I don't think that the percentage of I, J, R1a or R1b is very important. They probably all share similar Neanderthal admixture. What makes all the difference is the percentage of haplogroup E, and Serbia has a relatively high percentage by European standards.

your theory makes no sense...
Greece has around 27% of haplogroup E, while Serbia has 17%-20% depending on sampling... according to the map Serbia has much less admixture from Neanderthals than Greece...and you claim that it is due to haplogroup E that has no admixture, but that in Greece they have probably somehow sampled all non E haplogroup people.... sorry, but your claim is somewhat funny and extremelly biased...

you would do better if you try to pinpoint lineages that did mix.... but that is probably on level of subbranches and is not possible to determine from given data...

lol, wanna hear much more logical explanation than your biased interpretation?

Serbs were naturally white people, while others in Europe had to mix with Neanderthals to become white... :)

Carlitos
28-01-11, 22:39
I think you don't know much about Neanderthal. May I suggest you have a look at this : Neanderthal : facts and myths (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24894).

Well, I've read almost all the work of Juan Luis Ursuaga, do not forget that in Spain we have one of the most important archaeological sites that exist to date and now it is true that is taking a more loving to Neardhental, but now suddenly I'm not going to love them unconditionally because fashion has changed the perception that they might have in the past.


Ursuaga have them unconditional love, logic is all day in his bones, but I prefer to leave them in quarantine and how one day discover that modern Europeans are mixed with Neardhental, which I doubt, we Neardhental for a while, will become the overnight in the most wonderful creatures that creation is given.

Sprinkles
28-01-11, 23:48
It seems possible that I and J are a branch of a separate hominid lineage, perhaps a separate neanderthal lineage that doesn't have a B0006 marker. Since, what we see is that where E1b1b, I, and J, exist, there's very little B0006 marking.

Per Maciamo's analysis, what is evident is that microsattelite frequency is not giving us a descriptive frequency of neanderthal admixture since the sattelites are functioning as a measure of collectively different populations. This is also a problem i pointed out with respect to y-halogroup frequency and varience in attemtping to locate a focal point of a haplogroup's origin. It won't be accurate until a high percentage of the population is tested, and the microsattelites become more representative of geography.

It's also unusual that native americans have such a high neanderthal admixture and east asians have zero. We assume natives are of east asian origin?

I'm also skeptical that B0006 measures neanderthal admixture at all. The focal point of west india is odd.

how yes no 2
29-01-11, 01:30
It seems possible that I and J are a branch of a separate hominid lineage, perhaps a separate neanderthal lineage that doesn't have a B0006 marker. Since, what we see is that where E1b1b, I, and J, exist, there's very little B0006 marking.
hm, this makes more sense... but I still would not relate this marker to key branches or even subbranches...

based on given figure I do suggest something else....
that this marker was absent in Asia minor as it perhaps developed in people who crossed from Asia to Europe via Caucasus or around Caspian sea....

I would say that the supplied spread of B0006 marker is yet another indicator that south Slavs are closely related to previous inhabitants of Asia minor.... in my opinion, as I have repeated on many threads, south Slavs directly origin from Veneti and perhaps also from Cimmerians...

we do not know where Veneti originally dwelt, but we know from Herodotous that Paphlagonia Eneti were kicked out of Asia minor somewhat after Troyan war due to their joint expedition with Cimmerians....and that they crossed to Thrace and some of them eventually settled Adriatic coast.... my guess is that from Thrace they spread in several directions giving Adriatic Veneti, Vistula Veneti and Sarmatian Venedi (which are in my opinion same as Antes/Anti which is tribal name that is likely aslo derived from Eneti)... but they might have had originally spread from Balkan to Asia minor....

we also know from Jordanes that early Slavs are from populous race of Veneti.... we know that Cimmerians match I2a2 hotspots in Asia minor and above Black sea....



Per Maciamo's analysis, what is evident is that microsattelite frequency is not giving us a descriptive frequency of neanderthal admixture since the sattelites are functioning as a measure of collectively different populations. This is also a problem i pointed out with respect to y-halogroup frequency and varience in attemtping to locate a focal point of a haplogroup's origin. It won't be accurate until a high percentage of the population is tested, and the microsattelites become more representative of geography.
good point... it is really necessary to have much larger number of samples to be able to have conclusions about mapping of genetics to historical events....
this way we can only guess.... and more often than not data given per countries of today, can be misleading....


It's also unusual that native americans have such a high neanderthal admixture and east asians have zero. We assume natives are of east asian origin?
true...
good point...
but keep in mind that this may be exactly due to the effect that you talked about.... as there seems to be only one sampled point in east Asia....so it can be very misleading....


I'm also skeptical that B0006 measures neanderthal admixture at all. The focal point of west india is odd.
exactly...

approximate range of Homo neanderthalensis

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Range_of_Homo_neanderthalensis.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Range_of_Homo_neanderthalensis.png

lol, it kind of resembles spread of R1b

Mzungu mchagga
29-01-11, 13:25
Sorry to interrupt, but could someone please explain to me what detailed divisions of y-dna haplogroups have to do with Neanderthal-admixture?

I thought the admixture took place around 50 to 80.000 years ago, long before such groups as R1b existed. I guess it was even before the last common ancestor of all 'Caucasians' lived. All over Eurasia Neanderthal genes distributed differently: while at some places the genes got more or less lost and just make some kind of 'genetic spam' , in other places these genes even provided an evolutionary advantage for the descendants.

Mzungu mchagga
29-01-11, 13:32
Well, I've read almost all the work of Juan Luis Ursuaga, do not forget that in Spain we have one of the most important archaeological sites that exist to date and now it is true that is taking a more loving to Neardhental, but now suddenly I'm not going to love them unconditionally because fashion has changed the perception that they might have in the past.


Ursuaga have them unconditional love, logic is all day in his bones, but I prefer to leave them in quarantine and how one day discover that modern Europeans are mixed with Neardhental, which I doubt, we Neardhental for a while, will become the overnight in the most wonderful creatures that creation is given.

:laughing: Oh, you don't love Neanderthals just because it has become too fashionable to love them nowadays. *lol*
I really pitty the 'poor monsters' then... What you are probably thinking of is that is sounds too fantastic that the ugly caterpillar, due to a ONS, turned into the 'most wonderful creature that creation is given' [us!]. Yeah we really should do some research then on "How I met your mother" *lol*

Carlitos
29-01-11, 15:49
^^

Of course, dear, richer countries of Europe do not have to be in control of the genetic classification for your convenience, the genetics are there for all the rest did not have to follow the guidelines that make only a few at your convenience nationalist genetics is in its infancy and there is much to discover and some people want to go too fast and his intentions are revealed nationalist, if not racist in some cases.

how yes no 2
29-01-11, 19:45
Sorry to interrupt, but could someone please explain to me what detailed divisions of y-dna haplogroups have to do with Neanderthal-admixture?

marker probably has nothing to do with Neanderthals either... as its spread doesnot correlate with spread of Neanderthals......

the marker doesnot have anyhting directly to do with Y-DNA haplogroups......
Maciamo tried to explain areas with lower level of admixture with newly arived people from Africa (haplogroup E) that didnot have the admixture....
However, I do not think it is good explanation...as it doesnot hold for Greece...

As for correlation of neanderthals with R1b spread, that is observation completely unrelated to the admixture marker from that research... correlation in spread is there...it is hard to say why...my guess is that it is coincidence.....


I thought the admixture took place around 50 to 80.000 years ago, long before such groups as R1b existed. I guess it was even before the last common ancestor of all 'Caucasians' lived. All over Eurasia Neanderthal genes distributed differently: while at some places the genes got more or less lost and just make some kind of 'genetic spam' , in other places these genes even provided an evolutionary advantage for the descendants.

how can one estimate that marker is really 50-80000 years old? it's just educated guess that can be off even 50-70000 years....

if all people origin genetically from same first person who is root of the YDNA tree... and I guess only survivor of some major apocalyptic event...
how can some of people who origin from him have more admixture and some less....

well, let's look when is estimated lifetime of the root of YDNA tree...


Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in the African continent and is the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve, although he probably lived later than she did, possibly 50,000 to 80,000 years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

if admixture was there before "Adam", than it should be equally spread in all people who descend from "Adam", but it does not.... it is not present in African population (except for north Africa) which tells us that that specific marker came to existence only after group of people that origin from "Adam"' has left Africa.... and in fact, map shows that the group who carried the marker has entered Europe via Caucaus or around Caspian sea, as the marker is not existent among the settlers of Asia minor (which was btw. very Nenderthal area)...

btw. there is no such a thing as Caucasian in genetic sense... skin color is phenotype... there are black R1b people in Africa... consequently, there is no such a thing as common ancestor of all Caucasians...

Mzungu mchagga
30-01-11, 13:56
marker probably has nothing to do with Neanderthals either... as its spread doesnot correlate with spread of Neanderthals......

the marker doesnot have anyhting directly to do with Y-DNA haplogroups......
Maciamo tried to explain areas with lower level of admixture with newly arived people from Africa (haplogroup E) that didnot have the admixture....
However, I do not think it is good explanation...as it doesnot hold for Greece...

As for correlation of neanderthals with R1b spread, that is observation completely unrelated to the admixture marker from that research... correlation in spread is there...it is hard to say why...my guess is that it is coincidence.....



how can one estimate that marker is really 50-80000 years old? it's just educated guess that can be off even 50-70000 years....

if all people origin genetically from same first person who is root of the YDNA tree... and I guess only survivor of some major apocalyptic event...
how can some of people who origin from him have more admixture and some less....

well, let's look when is estimated lifetime of the root of YDNA tree...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

if admixture was there before "Adam", than it should be equally spread in all people who descend from "Adam", but it does not.... it is not present in African population (except for north Africa) which tells us that that specific marker came to existence only after group of people that origin from "Adam"' has left Africa.... and in fact, map shows that the group who carried the marker has entered Europe via Caucaus or around Caspian sea, as the marker is not existent among the settlers of Asia minor (which was btw. very Nenderthal area)...

btw. there is no such a thing as Caucasian in genetic sense... skin color is phenotype... there are black R1b people in Africa... consequently, there is no such a thing as common ancestor of all Caucasians...


I don't know that much about the spread of genes, sorry. But isn't it that Y-DNA shows only one gene in the human pool of many? What speaks against the theory that people entered Eurasia, mixed with Neanderthals, but the Y-DNA that still exists today in Eurasia entered the continent later and replaced previous Y-DNA, similiar like IE Y-DNA replaced a lot non-IE Y-DNA later. So of course we descend from sapiens and neanderthalensis that lived here some 70.000 years ago, but this specific Y-DNA that we carry entered Eurasia at a later stage.

I also think that Maciamo is right and some of the Neanderthal material was diluted by some later African migrations that entered Eurasia.

Nevertheless, many people here insist that we carry a lot of Neanderthal phenotypical characteristics in ourselves, like that of pale skin, some bone structure, even mental features [btw that is what i meant with 'Caucasian', because according to some people here in this forum 'Caucasian' features of looks and behaviour resemble closest that of Neanderthal]. These differ in Eurasiamerica from place to place and don't necessarily correlate with the actual amount of Neanderthal gene percentages.

But if it was true, that shouldn't matter anyway. My theory then would be the following: Africans entered the Near East where they picked up a large amount of Neanderthal genes first. These first people were just a very few and their lifestyle didn't differ much from Neanderthal, so probably they didn't view themselves as very different.
Later on the humans spread all over Eurasiamerica and carried Neanderthal genes in themselves. Perhaps most of Neanderthal genes were not that important for survival and just resemble some kind of 'spam'. In some regions it even got mostly lost after some while. In other regions where Neanderthal genes were of advantage, or at least not of disadvantage like pale skin in northern regions, they still can be seen phenotypically.
In some regions they can phenotypically seen even though they don't make up much of the gene pool [some parts of Europe], while in others they can't be seen but still exist in a fair amount [western America].

What do you think about that?

Carlitos
30-01-11, 15:00
Perhaps the weather and altitude, latitude, etc. of a certain place just giving any hominid living in them a similar physical characteristics.

Mzungu mchagga
30-01-11, 16:04
Perhaps the weather and altitude, latitude, etc. of a certain place just giving any hominid living in them a similar physical characteristics.

For sure! As long as there is no sure evidence that we really picked up the one or other feature of Neanderthals, I would say the hypothesis that Europeans took a convergent development to Neanderthals is as realistic as the other. I just don't want to fix on either or right now!

how yes no 2
30-01-11, 17:26
I don't know that much about the spread of genes, sorry. But isn't it that Y-DNA shows only one gene in the human pool of many? What speaks against the theory that people entered Eurasia, mixed with Neanderthals, but the Y-DNA that still exists today in Eurasia entered the continent later and replaced previous Y-DNA, similiar like IE Y-DNA replaced a lot non-IE Y-DNA later. So of course we descend from sapiens and neanderthalensis that lived here some 70.000 years ago, but this specific Y-DNA that we carry entered Eurasia at a later stage.

I am no expert either...

but yes, you are right...
Y-DNA replacement is possible, as it only reflects direct male line of gene inheritance...

however, direct female line is even younger than direct male line....

now, you can replace direct male line of previous population by newly settled tribe killing all males and taking over their wives...

with Amazones like tribes, you can do the opposite as well, replace completely direct female line by killing all females and taking over their males

but this neanderthal marker not being related to either direct male lines or direct female lines means that both of above scenarios happened... now I find it hard to imagine regarding estimated fairly high percentage of its participation in total gene's pool....


I also think that Maciamo is right and some of the Neanderthal material was diluted by some later African migrations that entered Eurasia.

true, but I saw some works talking about haplogroup E reentering Africa after the initial split on basic branches.... so, the part of haplogroup E carriers that reentered Africa might have had the marker.... and if they again went out of Africa they would still have the marker... so Euroasia could have been entered by both E haplogroup carriers with marker and the ones without, also as marker is not part of YDNA....
but E haplogroup in Serbs and Greeks is the same subbranch and taken together with geographical proximity very likely of same origin... so it cannot be that ones have it from people with marker and others from people without marker...

north Africa, Levant and Greece are areas where haplogroup E is much more dominant than in e.g. Serbs, and in same time those areas have much more of the marker we talk about...so there is no correlation expected by Maciamo....

Asia minor and Sogdiana/northwest China are also areas that lack marker...
and while Asia minor has decent frequencies of haplogroup E, Sogdiana and northwest China have much less... again no correlation between presence of haplogroup E and absence of marker...



Nevertheless, many people here insist that we carry a lot of Neanderthal phenotypical characteristics in ourselves, like that of pale skin, some bone structure, even mental features [btw that is what i meant with 'Caucasian', because according to some people here in this forum 'Caucasian' features of looks and behaviour resemble closest that of Neanderthal]. These differ in Eurasiamerica from place to place and don't necessarily correlate with the actual amount of Neanderthal gene percentages.
lol, mental features....
from what we know, Neanderthals were wild creatures.... not some intellectually highly developed beings....stop seeing them as some Cambridge, Oxford, Sorbona, Yale graduates... from what we know, they were just bunch of wild beast without superior characteristics compared to humans...


But if it was true, that shouldn't matter anyway. My theory then would be the following: Africans entered the Near East where they picked up a large amount of Neanderthal genes first. These first people were just a very few and their lifestyle didn't differ much from Neanderthal, so probably they didn't view themselves as very different.
they did look quite different.... which is enough to see Neanderthals as enemies.... more likely scenario is that early humans did interbreed with some Neanderthal woman while conquering new areas....


Later on the humans spread all over Eurasiamerica and carried Neanderthal genes in themselves. Perhaps most of Neanderthal genes were not that important for survival and just resemble some kind of 'spam'. In some regions it even got mostly lost after some while. In other regions where Neanderthal genes were of advantage, or at least not of disadvantage like pale skin in northern regions, they still can be seen phenotypically.

I would not really relate white skin to Neanderthals...
after all highest percentage of marker that is attributed to Neanderthals is in Indians of north America...


In some regions they can phenotypically seen even though they don't make up much of the gene pool [some parts of Europe], while in others they can't be seen but still exist in a fair amount [western America].
this is a bit as Maciamo's attempt to explain lack of marker in some areas with haplogroup E... introducing in explanation a special case that is difficult to support....


What do you think about that?

I think that your theory, same as the one of Maciamo, does have in its core some sort of hidden racism that needs to show Caucasian or "white" skin people being some superior race compared to black skin people of Africa.... but such claims do not hold, as black people are not inferior to white people in any way... it is only the case that their environment and history was such that their cultures didnot achieve milestones set by people living in much better natural and social conditions.... do you think Europe would be what it is, if its inhabitants had to deal all the time with environment factors, such as various tropical diseases, jungle beasts and survival issues, and socially with being slaves of another population... I am sure it would not....
for civilization to develop there should be enough free time... e.g. in ancient Greece this was possible due to slaves doing all the work... modern civilization is built by adding more achievements in small steps... but those achievements are only possible when environment is such that it allows them...

Carlitos
30-01-11, 17:51
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome

It is possible that the remains of females Neardhental analyzed were contaminated with european science male genome and therefore are not african.

It was a rumor that had been sounding increasingly high among scientists who study human evolution. And it came true when the consortium led by Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for German and Spanish participation, has released the draft of the Neanderthal genome sequence: the human species (Homo sapiens) and Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis). It has been said that both species share between 1% -4% of the genome. This has raised some comments, after all, do not share 98% of the genome with chimpanzees?

Mzungu mchagga
30-01-11, 18:02
I am no expert either...

but yes, you are right...
Y-DNA replacement is possible, as it only reflects direct male line of gene inheritance...

however, direct female line is even younger than direct male line....

now, you can replace direct male line of previous population by newly settled tribe killing all males and taking over their wives...

with Amazones like tribes, you can do the opposite as well, replace completely direct female line by killing all females and taking over their males

but this neanderthal marker not being related to either direct male lines or direct female lines means that both of above scenarios happened... now I find it hard to imagine....


true, but I saw some works talking about haplogroup E reentering Africa after the initial split on basic branches.... so, the part of haplogroup E carriers that reentered Africa might have had the marker.... and if it again went out of Africa it would still have the marker... so Euroasia could have been entered by both E haplogroup carriers withj marker and the ones without, also as marker is not part of YDNA....
but E haplogroup in Serbs and Greeks is the same subbranch and taken together with geographical proximity very likely of same origin... so it cannot be that ones have it from people with marker and others from people without marker...

north Africa, Levant and Greece are areas where haplogroup E is much more dominant than in e.g. Serbs, and in same time those areas have much more of the marker we talk about...so there is no correlation expected by Maciamo....

Asia minor and Sogdiana/northwest China are also areas that lack marker...
and while Asia minor has decent frequencies of haplogroup E, Sogdiana and northwest China have much less... again no correlation between presence of haplogroup E and absence of marker...



lol, mental features....
from what we know, Neanderthals were wild creatures.... not some intellectually highly developed beings....stop seeing them as some Cambridge, Oxford, Sorbona, Yale graduates... from what we know, they were just bunch of wild beast without superior characteristics compared to humans...


they did look quite different.... which is enough to see Neanderthals as enemies.... more likely scenario is that early humans did interbreed with some Neanderthal woman while conquering new areas....


I would not really relate white skin to Neanderthals...
after all highest percentage of marker that is attributed to Neanderthals is in Indians of north America...


this is a bit as Maciamo's attempt to explain lack of marker in some areas with haplogroup E... introducing in explanation a special case that is difficult to support....



I think that your theory, same as the one of Maciamo, does have in its core some sort of hidden racism that needs to show Caucasian or "white" skin people being some superior race compared to black skin people of Africa.... but such claims do not hold, as black people are not inferior to white people in any way... it is only the case that their environment and history was such that their cultures didnot achieve milestones set by people living in much better natural and social conditions.... do you think Europe would be what it is, if its inhabitants had to deal all the time with environment factors, such as various tropical diseases, jungle beasts and survival issues, and socially with being slaves of another population... I am sure it would not....

Nope.
First of all, I don't link the shade of the skin to any superiority or inferiority. And even quite the contrary there aren't just a few people [e.g. Carlitos] who even see it as an insult that the 'European look' derives from an short and ugly human-like creature that wasn't even strong enough to survive and who's ugly women got probably raped, of what we are the product of.

Secondly, I don't think that we inherited mental features from Neanderthal. This is Maciamo's hypothesis! You can read it in this thread:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26085

Third, there is no clear evidence that we have pale skin from Neanderthals. It is a proven fact that Neanderthals had pale skin and red hair, too, but by which this derives from a different mutation than ours! [see in the same link above!] However, as research isn't finished yet and this theory couldn't neither be completely falsificated or verificated yet, it remains a hypothesis. But of course no fact! Personally I tend to prefer the convergent theory, but don't want to exclude the other fully.

There are still too many things we don't know about the exact movements of prehistoric people. I don't think that people moved always from one direction into the other, it was always to some degree a to-and-back movement, like between the Near East and Africa. Perhaps even between Asia and America, no one knows... Reseach still has to be done!

Concering racism, this is the classic discussion between followers of the Out-of-Africa Theory and the regionalists. As research progresses it seems more and more likely that reality was a mixture of both, by which Out-of-Africa was mostly right, but with some minor regionalist truth, by which the exact degree of this regionalist influence is in the focus now.

Carlitos
30-01-11, 18:23
Mzungu mchagga
First of all, I don't link the shade of the skin to any superiority or inferiority. And even quite the contrary there aren't just a few people [e.g. Carlitos] who even see it as an insult that the 'European look' derives from an short and ugly human-like creature that wasn't even strong enough to survive and who's ugly women got probably raped, of what we are the product of.




No man, if the news is true, accept it, after all my comrade is a western, my only objection to the hypothesis that up very quickly and some believe anything right away and it seems the alleged similarities between Neardhental and modern sapiens found in modern non-sapiens in the Neardhental, strange, ugly "violated" the beautiful woman, no other way around. I do not know, is a very big mess and we are turning the tables to get away with it, these scientists and to show I do not know why, at the end.

Mzungu mchagga
30-01-11, 19:12
No man, if the news is true, accept it, after all my comrade is a western, my only objection to the hypothesis that up very quickly and some believe anything right away and it seems the alleged similarities between Neardhental and modern sapiens found in modern non-sapiens in the Neardhental, strange, ugly "violated" the beautiful woman, no other way around. I do not know, is a very big mess and we are turning the tables to get away with it, these scientists and to show I do not know why, at the end.

Who ever who raped whom... It doesn't matter.

From what I know until about 80.000 years ago the lifestyle between Sapiens and Neanderthals didn't differ that much. Both were simple hunter&gatherers, used the same tools and created no arts, or at least we couldn't find any yet. Sapiens entered the Near East in a fairly small number, and probably didn't meet other humans very often. If they did, they perhaps would also have exchanged women with Neanderthals. Not on a large scale of course, but big enough to leave a print on a population which just underwent a bottle-neck situation.

40 to 50.000 years later things were different. Sapiens was culturally clearly superior with the creation of arts and weapons. They also started to outnumber Neanderthals in Europe. That could have been a point at which Neanderthals were not seen as any humans anymore, but perhaps as beasts. And also from this time on we have no evidence that both interbred, as the Neanderthal genes scientists have found in humans nowadays are much older [hey, that's what the authors of these scientific papers wrote].

Sprinkles
30-01-11, 19:42
Of course X and Y chromosomes will correlate if inbreeding took place between population a and b. The ways it wouldn't are if there is a constant supply of gene flow from population a into b, where population b would eventually be replaced by a. Or if the X chromosome was not favorably selected in the population ab, while the y chromosome of b was well selected for.

The other aspect is that it seems that haplogroup R and Q are showing correlations with B006. Which would mean that an ancestor of both R and Q mated with b006 hominids. The inbreeding would have occurred after MNOPS within haplogroup P which is a direct descendant of haplogroup R and Q.

Thus haplogroup O asians which branch off of MNOPS as well, lack b006 admixture. I think it's too early to know for sure what occured, but we should be reasonable to assume that they are not neandertal Y-DNA's. Since b006 marking took place after MNOPS.

Which leaves me to the hypothesis that IJ may be pure Y-haplogroups of a separate neanderthal branch or a separate hominid branch.


NOP -> P, NO
P (b006 marker) -> Q, R
NO -> N, O (no marker)

http://wanclik.free.fr/eupedia_fichiers/image007.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Haplogroup_Q_(Y-DNA).PNG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Haplogrupo_O_(ADN-Y).PNG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA).PNG
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_x6Y4ZgFsZdY/TUASbQImIWI/AAAAAAAAAfo/kD8eGbxidp8/s1600/X-DNA+B006.jpg

Sprinkles
30-01-11, 19:51
If anyone didn't read haplogroup P is the prime marker for B006 admixture.

Where was haplogroup P when it acquired B006. Maybe they were neanderthals, maybe they were hominids that already inbred with neanderthals.

Where did they mate? A good location seems to be Kazakhstan and the vicinities around there.

Now did they mate with Neanderthals with B006 or did they mate with other hominids with B006 or did they mate with a species that already inbred with neanderthal with b006. The location doesn't seems likely to be neanderthal.

how yes no 2
30-01-11, 20:07
Of course X and Y chromosomes will correlate if inbreeding took place between population a and b. The ways it wouldn't are if there is a constant supply of gene flow from population a into b, where population b would eventually be replaced by a. Or if the X chromosome was not favorably selected in the population ab, while the y chromosome of b was well selected for.
The other aspect is that it seems that haplogroup R and Q are showing correlations with B006. Which would mean that an ancestor of both R and Q mated with b006 hominids. The inbreeding would have occurred after MNOPS within haplogroup P which is a direct descendant of haplogroup R and Q.
Thus haplogroup O asians which branch off of MNOPS as well, lack b006 admixture. I think it's too early to know for sure what occured, but we should be reasonable to assume that they are not neandertal Y-DNA's. Since b006 marking took place after MNOPS.
Which leaves me to the hypothesis that IJ may be pure Y-haplogroups of a separate neanderthal branch or a separate hominid branch.
NOP -> P, NO
P (b006 marker) -> Q, R
NO -> N, O (no marker)
this is really good observation and explanation

though area of Afghanistan has lot of haplogroup R and not much of the marker... could it be that not all R is related to the marker...also not all Q, as it is not present in Mexico or in fact in area of Mayan civilization...

my guess is that when the admixture entered genes, there were already some R and Q people separated from basic tribe with P*, R and Q people...

perhaps even R1b-V88 branch already existed... though lack of marker in their area of Africa may be due to not fine grained sampling...

is it possible that admixture origins from massive mixing, not just from single person.... that mixing has given same resulting change in genetics in many people in same time...

LeBrok
30-01-11, 21:11
Carlitos, do you have a picture of a real Neanderthal woman to prove your point, that they were ugly?
We all know that among people there are ugly woman too, and even they have kids.

how yes no 2
30-01-11, 21:17
Carlitos, do you have a picture of a real Neanderthal woman to prove your point, that they were ugly?
We all know that among people there are ugly woman too, and even they have kids.

tastes are different!

meet Wilma :)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/images/080917-neanderthal-photo_big.jpg
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080917-neanderthal-photo.html


the findings had suggested that at least some Neanderthals would have had red hair, pale skin, and possibly freckles.

Carlitos
30-01-11, 21:18
Carlitos, do you have a picture of a real Neanderthal woman to prove your point, that they were ugly?
We all know that among people there are ugly woman too, and even they have kids.

Ugly is not my adjective to the vision of Neardhental may have, before use, rustic, strange, powerful and many others, perhaps they were beautiful, all created beings can be beautiful, is a subjective topic.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3X1lMySTPcE/S-RgF5tLIrI/AAAAAAAACus/yQA1sHILpRw/s320/ndr3.jpghttp://www.lavozdigital.es/cadiz/prensa/noticias/200710/26/fotos/067D5CA-SOC-P1_1.jpg

I do not want to offend the memory of Neardhental, I produce a great pity and I feel deeply sorry for them, now extinct.

http://www.report-fotografia.com/pensemhobe/Imagen/carmen%20de%20mairena.jpg
You may even be true that a specimen of Neardhental between us.

Twilight
18-10-12, 08:21
Then it makes more sense that Greece seems to have the same coloring as Western Europe while it has similar Y-DNA with Albania and Serbia, who have the lowest Neanderthal admixture according to the map.

Ancient Greece did a lot of colonizing around the Mediterranean including southern France

Twilight
18-10-12, 08:58
Oh boy, wait unill I show this to my Step-Dad since he is a Quarter Chinook anyway how much of the b006 marker was contracted to Western Europe? :)

MOESAN
18-10-12, 22:20
I have some doubts about the validity of thoses neanderthal-not-neanderthal DNA, to begin: I 'd tempted to say: "wait and sea" -
well:
- a true genuine admixture in Europe and Eurasia could have taken place in very old time but also about the 40000/-35000 BC
- common DNA shared by Neanderthal and "modern" Man (sapiens sapiens for some of them..., half sapiens for others), on X or any chromosom, don't prove any admixture at all and can show us but a very ancient shared common origin: here lays the very problem, I believe (I'm not a genetician) - but when I read (sometimes) the serie of papers one ofthem contradicting an other...

MOESAN
18-10-12, 22:27
as you can see on the few pictures posted here, the reconstitution of fleshy parts of body and face of ancient skeletons is BY NO WAY A SCIENTIFIC ONE because there is no way to be.
among the least reliable reconstruction you find the nose fleshy form and length, the eyelids, the lips, and the head hair implantation... NO COMPLETE SCIENCE BUT A CROSSING OF SCIENCE AND ESTHETIC ART: or just "TV Science"

Sile
15-08-13, 09:52
I have a relative tested recently with 23andme, and is J2a4 (ydna) , he has also stated as having 3.2% Neanderthal , 91st% percentile. He noted to me that 3.3% is maximum for 23andme and their average is 2.7%.
Lastly he also stated that if you are 100% European ( i presume from a Doug test ) like me. I can carry both neanderthal and denivosan markers while lower percentages cannot have both.

My questions are:
1 - does this neanderthal % over the average ( above) indicate a very very old entry into Europe or mideast by ones relatives of the past?

2 - Is it true that a person would have No african mixture if you have a denivosan mark, but instead of an african mixture you would have an asian one?

Nobody1
15-08-13, 14:44
@ Sile

Have you seen this before? from 2012

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/people-from-tuscany-most-similar-neanderthals/

nordicquarreler
15-08-13, 15:08
It seems possible that I and J are a branch of a separate hominid lineage, perhaps a separate neanderthal lineage that doesn't have a B0006 marker. Since, what we see is that where E1b1b, I, and J, exist, there's very little B0006 marking.

Per Maciamo's analysis, what is evident is that microsattelite frequency is not giving us a descriptive frequency of neanderthal admixture since the sattelites are functioning as a measure of collectively different populations. This is also a problem i pointed out with respect to y-halogroup frequency and varience in attemtping to locate a focal point of a haplogroup's origin. It won't be accurate until a high percentage of the population is tested, and the microsattelites become more representative of geography.

It's also unusual that native americans have such a high neanderthal admixture and east asians have zero. We assume natives are of east asian origin?

I'm also skeptical that B0006 measures neanderthal admixture at all. The focal point of west india is odd. Very interesting (the I-J part), I think this needs to be explored. My dad's 23 and Me results have him at either 2.7% or 2.8% Neanderthal-- I forget which exactly-- and he is hg. I1. His percentage is average (for non-African population anyway), but your I-J branch suggestion is an area that needs further study.

Sile
15-08-13, 21:34
@ Sile

Have you seen this before? from 2012

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/people-from-tuscany-most-similar-neanderthals/

I had a read, but do not know what you are pointing out.!
The map is interesting as it has a path to the alps as per 23andme conversation to my relative.
For me , the map reflects the low level land mass merging italy and ancient illyria as I have read many times.

I might have to do a 23andme test or a natgeno 2.0 which I have been told covers both N and D percentages

pyromatic
17-08-13, 23:46
Very interesting (the I-J part), I think this needs to be explored. My dad's 23 and Me results have him at either 2.7% or 2.8% Neanderthal-- I forget which exactly-- and he is hg. I1. His percentage is average (for non-African population anyway), but your I-J branch suggestion is an area that needs further study.

If IJ represent a separate hominid lineage, then F must represent some very archaic hominid, and A and B must be, what, australopithecus? So K then is the only homo sapiens branch? Yeah, that makes sense.

On a separate note, you can plug many of those rs SNPs into your 23andme data and get some values. I was able to exclude all haplotypes but B001. Does anyone know of any good X-chromosome analysis tools?

silkyslovanbojkovsky
20-08-13, 18:53
Interesting study. So this is just about the amount of Neanderthal Mitochondrial dna in human populations? Is the overall admixture in humans of Neanderthal still thought to be 1-4% or are they claiming that there is now a higher percentage in humans? Also I don't quite understand why native americans from the west close have such a high proportion. Could it be that Non African populations share similar genes to Neanderthal because maybe Neanderthal also descended from a much older east African population that still partially remained in non sub-Saharan African populations, that sub Saharan Africans don't descend from. Or am I totally wrong on this one?