PDA

View Full Version : New Study: Man Possibly NOT Related to Neanderthal



JFWR
15-08-12, 11:01
We may not, as previously thought, have a little bit of Neanderthal in us, scientists have revealed.

Similarities between the DNA of modern people and Neanderthals are more likely to have arisen from shared ancestry than interbreeding, a new study has found.

The team from the University of Cambridge published their new theory this week in PNAS journal.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2188065/Humans-descended-Neanderthals-say-scientists-DNA-similarities-result-interbreeding.html#ixzz23bUcjPod

Knovas
15-08-12, 14:11
I think Dienekes' blogged about this: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/or-maybe-modern-humans-and-neandertals.html

However, he previously posted another article supporting the Neanderthal admixture: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/the-date-of-neandertal-admixture-47.html

I don't know what to think xd

LeBrok
15-08-12, 15:54
They used computer model to determine if it possible to evolve like we did, only on rate of mutation alone. Their computer model says that it was possible.
I'd still go with my eyes, archaeology and genetics. Hominids always mixed, plus Homo Sapience was already mixed with other hominides before leaving Africa.

JFWR
15-08-12, 16:02
They used computer model to determine if it possible to evolve like we did, only on rate of mutation alone. Their computer model says that it was possible.
I'd still go with my eyes, archaeology and genetics. Hominids always mixed, plus Homo Sapience was already mixed with other hominides before leaving Africa.

I don't know if you can really see it to say that one will "believe with one's eyes". Unless you're talking about, say, Australian Aboriginees looking Neanderthal/Devisonian to the extreme. Europeans don't look ESPECIALLY Neanderthalic and have none of the distinguishing features.

JFWR
15-08-12, 16:04
I think Dienekes' blogged about this: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/or-maybe-modern-humans-and-neandertals.html

However, he previously posted another article supporting the Neanderthal admixture: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/the-date-of-neandertal-admixture-47.html

I don't know what to think xd

I think the biggest problem here is that the Neanderthal admixture is not found in Sub-Saharan Africans. If this theory is correct, an ancestor of mankind and Neanderthal were in North Africa when they split. Neanderthals went North, man went South. Then why would we find the potential admixture only in Eurasians out of Africa if they shared it from the start?

Knovas
15-08-12, 17:27
That's a good point JFWR. The incredibly low amounts of Neanderthal admixture among Pygmies, some San, etc. (meaningless to the point that I've never seen reliable percents), makes the "shared ancestry theory" quite unlikely. If that's true, I asume that the shared markers would be pretty much the same, doesn't matter if Eurasians or inner Africans.

oriental
15-08-12, 23:27
I don't know if you can really see it to say that one will "believe with one's eyes". Unless you're talking about, say, Australian Aboriginees looking Neanderthal/Devisonian to the extreme. Europeans don't look ESPECIALLY Neanderthalic and have none of the distinguishing features.


I keep on reading European looked different from so and so. Before domestication of goats, cattle and consuming milk from these animals Europeans looked just like Africans as did everyone. It was the consumption of milk, cheese, yogurt, curds and other milk products that increased the calcium content int e diet and affected the facial bone structure. People would consume a lot of goat milk products such as Arabs, Jews, French and the Caucasus have large noses.

Milk also tends to whiten the skin. Look at African Americans. They don't look like the slaves that were brought in to America. Their noses are more pronounced as they consume the western diet of milk and cheeseburgers. In a few hundred years the Afro-American will not be distinguishable from white European Americans. Look at Alishia Keys, Halle Berry, Pushskin (who had African heritage) Napolean Bonaparte, Albert Einstein, Adolph Hitler, Wright Brother, former president Lyndon Baines Johnson, Albert Einstein. They all have African heritage. The Bergers are of African heritage but they consume milk or milk products therefore look more "European". All the cranial studies are junk.

LeBrok
16-08-12, 06:44
I don't know if you can really see it to say that one will "believe with one's eyes". Unless you're talking about, say, Australian Aboriginees looking Neanderthal/Devisonian to the extreme. Europeans don't look ESPECIALLY Neanderthalic and have none of the distinguishing features.
I just think your afraid that it is true, on some subconscious level. Do you think Neanderthals were ugly?

Yes, I could see it from day one.
People, especially young one are very promiscuous. As long as Human/Neanderthal hybrid was genetically possible there was one. Humans didn't need to take much of Neanderthals traits. Mostly white skin and a big nose, the rest wasn't needed much.

LeBrok
16-08-12, 06:48
I keep on reading European looked different from so and so. Before domestication of goats, cattle and consuming milk from these animals Europeans looked just like Africans as did everyone. It was the consumption of milk, cheese, yogurt, curds and other milk products that increased the calcium content int e diet and affected the facial bone structure. People would consume a lot of goat milk products such as Arabs, Jews, French and the Caucasus have large noses.
Milk also tends to whiten the skin. Look at African Americans. They don't look like the slaves that were brought in to America. Their noses are more pronounced as they consume the western diet of milk and cheeseburgers. In a few hundred years the Afro-American will not be distinguishable from white European Americans. Look at Alishia Keys, Halle Berry, Pushskin (who had African heritage) Napolean Bonaparte, Albert Einstein, Adolph Hitler, Wright Brother, former president Lyndon Baines Johnson, Albert Einstein. They all have African heritage. The Bergers are of African heritage but they consume milk or milk products therefore look more "European". All the cranial studies are junk.
Milk, cheese, white, big nose, it keeps popping up from time to time on forums. Where did you read about this?

Keep drinking a lot of milk and send us before and after pictures, ok?

zanipolo
16-08-12, 08:27
Humans can have some neanderthal in them ( but I agree we are different species) because they can impregnate a human woman, but a human cannot impregnate a neanderthal woman. ........some say, we have between 2 and 10% of neantheral genes running around

JFWR
16-08-12, 08:34
I just think your afraid that it is true, on some subconscious level. Do you think Neanderthals were ugly?

Not really. But Neanderthals have these features that are almost completely absent in European populations:

1. Pronounced, heavy brow ridges.

2. Absence of a chin with a protruding mouth.

3. Occipital bun.

And those are only the facial features.

The only people who DO have this are AAs.

The nose shape of Neanderthals doesn't tend to match European populations, either.


Yes, I could see it from day one.
People, especially young one are very promiscuous. As long as Human/Neanderthal hybrid was genetically possible there was one. Humans didn't need to take much of Neanderthals traits. Mostly white skin and a big nose, the rest wasn't needed much.

I don't think white skin has any known ties to Neanderthal. The genes for light skin are fairly diverse. Besides, whites have smaller noses than blacks, just more protruding. Neanderthals had huge, wide noses.

JFWR
16-08-12, 08:35
That's a good point JFWR. The incredibly low amounts of Neanderthal admixture among Pygmies, some San, etc. (meaningless to the point that I've never seen reliable percents), makes the "shared ancestry theory" quite unlikely. If that's true, I asume that the shared markers would be pretty much the same, doesn't matter if Eurasians or inner Africans.

Precisely. The divergent representation of "Neanderthal genes" in human populations lends credibility to the hybrid hypothesis. People who did not leave Africa in prehistory have none of them, whereas people who moved to Eurasia have it. That's pretty definitive for me.

JFWR
16-08-12, 08:47
I keep on reading European looked different from so and so. Before domestication of goats, cattle and consuming milk from these animals Europeans looked just like Africans as did everyone. It was the consumption of milk, cheese, yogurt, curds and other milk products that increased the calcium content int e diet and affected the facial bone structure. People would consume a lot of goat milk products such as Arabs, Jews, French and the Caucasus have large noses.

This is almost surely incorrect. As a forensic anthropologist can tell you, one can tell the difference between Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid skeletons. The skeletons in prehistoric Europe are Caucasoid, and in East Asia are Mongoloid. These bones predate milk, and both populations have light skin (albeit "white" v. "yellow" skin).

Light skin is an adaptation that has been around surely since the last ice age.


Milk also tends to whiten the skin. Look at African Americans. They don't look like the slaves that were brought in to America. Their noses are more pronounced as they consume the western diet of milk and cheeseburgers. In a few hundred years the Afro-American will not be distinguishable from white European Americans. Look at Alishia Keys, Halle Berry, Pushskin (who had African heritage) Napolean Bonaparte, Albert Einstein, Adolph Hitler, Wright Brother, former president Lyndon Baines Johnson, Albert Einstein. They all have African heritage. The Bergers are of African heritage but they consume milk or milk products therefore look more "European". All the cranial studies are junk.

African Americans look whiter because almost all black Americans have white ancestry. Miscegnation during slave times has produced the mulatto African Americans. However, you vastly, vastly overestimate how diveregent black Americans are from the Negroid norm. There are tons of blacks who look precisely like their ancestors in Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation#Genetic_studies_of_racial_admixture - Most blacks have significant white ancestry.

In fact, the only black Americans on your list are all known mulattos. Halle Berry was raised by her white mother! Alicia Keys' mother is also white.

Hitler, Napoleon, and the Wright Brothers had a haplogroup associated with North Africa. Big whoop? The association is probably thousands of years old. For all we know, these people were descendants of Hannibal's Alpine expedition.

MOESAN
16-08-12, 14:52
I keep on reading European looked different from so and so. Before domestication of goats, cattle and consuming milk from these animals Europeans looked just like Africans as did everyone. It was the consumption of milk, cheese, yogurt, curds and other milk products that increased the calcium content int e diet and affected the facial bone structure. People would consume a lot of goat milk products such as Arabs, Jews, French and the Caucasus have large noses.

Milk also tends to whiten the skin. Look at African Americans. They don't look like the slaves that were brought in to America. Their noses are more pronounced as they consume the western diet of milk and cheeseburgers. In a few hundred years the Afro-American will not be distinguishable from white European Americans. Look at Alishia Keys, Halle Berry, Pushskin (who had African heritage) Napolean Bonaparte, Albert Einstein, Adolph Hitler, Wright Brother, former president Lyndon Baines Johnson, Albert Einstein. They all have African heritage. The Bergers are of African heritage but they consume milk or milk products therefore look more "European". All the cranial studies are junk.

I have not the talent of Lebrok to shorten things like that... But what you say here is very funny:
do you believe that evolution runs so fast???
HAVE IN MIND THAT "BLACK" AMRICANS ARE CROSSINGS OF (diverse) BLACK AND WHITE people (as the photos!)
no offense

Knovas
16-08-12, 15:51
Moesan is right, that makes absolutely no sense. And by the way, the point that haplogroup E is "African" it's only one side of the coin. It has been already postulated (and discussed here many times), that E wasn't in Africa since the begining. Maybe originated in Africa (not sure at all, we are dealing with a very distant past), but probably paragroup DE didn't according to the last clues. But the fact is that E (E1b1..etc.) was linked to Caucasoid groups since a very very long time, so it's not surprising that Einstein, Hitler and many other carriers were Caucasoids. Only haplogroups A and B (Y-DNA) seem to be purely African, we need more research concerning E and its origins, but at the moment the point that E wasn't completely African would explain fairly well the afiliation of most deep Sub-Saharan populations with West Eurasians (reported by Dienekes').

sparkey
16-08-12, 17:32
John Hawks reiterates (http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/neandertal-ancestry-iced-2012.html) a lot of what we've been arguing about the original topic, and goes into detail about heterogeneity:


For example, our comparisons quickly refute the hypothesis that Neandertal similarity comes only from ancient population structure in Africa. That hypothesis predicts much more heterogeneity within Africans in Neandertal similarity than exists today. We've shown that the heterogeneity in Africans is basically the same as within Europeans or Asians, and that the variance among African populations so far is quite small. Those are very simple observations, which are consistent with what Yang and colleagues [2] (http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/neandertal-ancestry-iced-2012.html#ref2) concluded on the basis of the frequency spectrum of Neandertal alleles in large samples of living people. Even though many Neandertal-shared SNP alleles came from incomplete lineage sorting, the signature of excess Neandertal sharing outside Africa must come mostly from recent introgression. In Ewen Callaway's article about this research (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08/neanderthal-sex-debate-highlights-benefits-of-pre-publication.html), David Reich dismissed the new paper by Eriksson and Manica as "obsolete". I agree. The paper describes a model without carrying out any new empirical comparisons, and so has fallen behind where the science has gone.

He also has an interesting side note, which should pique the interest of anyone with an interest in genetic anthropology:


I haven't written about here yet, but I have been lecturing about it quite widely over the past few months. Earlier this year, the genome of Ötzi the Tyrolean Iceman was reported by Andreas Keller and colleagues [4] (http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/neandertal-ancestry-iced-2012.html#ref4). Aaron Sams and I downloaded the data and have been carrying out several different kinds of comparisons. A picture: http://johnhawks.net/graphics/otzi-1000-genomes-all-diploid-comparison.png
I'd like to see the model of African population structure that could explain this result...

sparkey
16-08-12, 17:47
...and Dienekes is on a quest (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/oetzi-neandertal-champion.html):


I have already made a map of Oetzi's genome. His overall admixture proportions using weac2 are:


1.05% Palaeoafrican
43.94% Atlantic_Baltic
0.00% Northeast_Asian
51.52% Near_East
1.54% Sub_Saharan
0.00% South_Asian
1.95% Southeast_Asian



and a fine scale map of his ancestry (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7JDEoCgzRKeSEpoeEFiaWE1aDA) can be found here (NCBI 36 positions). I used a window of 100 SNPs, advanced by 10 SNPs. Admixture estimates within each window are obviously noisy, but if there is a pattern where Oetzi is more "Neandertal" in Atlantic_Baltic vs. Near_East regions, it ought to jump out.

So, anyone can look at regions where Oetzi matches Vindija and see whether Near_East or Atlantic_Baltic will carry the day in the Neandertal championships!

JFWR
16-08-12, 17:55
John Hawks reiterates (http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/neandertal-ancestry-iced-2012.html) a lot of what we've been arguing about the original topic, and goes into detail about heterogeneity:



He also has an interesting side note, which should pique the interest of anyone with an interest in genetic anthropology:

Could you explain John Hawk's diagram? I am not sure what it is supposed to show.

sparkey
16-08-12, 18:13
Could you explain John Hawk's diagram? I am not sure what it is supposed to show.

It basically shows that Ötzi is more Neanderthal than modern Eurasians, who are more Neanderthal than modern Africans.

Knovas
16-08-12, 19:12
But that seems contradictory because modern Northern Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than modern Southern Europeans in average. Or at least, that's the popular knowledge.

I think it's necessary to check the Sardinian samples (pretty much the same as Ötzi) to see if the mentioned info fits.

PD: According to 23andme, I am more Neanderthal than most Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans. Don't know if it's really true though, I certainly don't look Neanderthal LOL

ebAmerican
16-08-12, 22:05
Polyphenism could explain why Eurasians have ~5% similar Neanderthal genes. We see it in the wild all the time where a species will morph a trait of a stronger similar species for survival. I don't believe that humans ever sexually mingled with Neanderthals. I think they have a common ancestor and similar survival genetic traits became similar because of environmental effects to survive in MP/UP Europe. Same goes for Denisova and South East Asians. Africans never left and didn't need to genetically adapt to different climates. What we are seeing are cousin species adapting in similar ways to their environment. This would explain why we don't see any mDNA or yDNA of Neanderthals in modern humans.

ebAmerican
16-08-12, 22:18
Homo Sapiens Sapiens may have gone through similar genetic shifts as Neanderthals for adaptive purposes 40ka, and this is why Otzi has more Neanderthal like genetics than modern humans (as he is older). I would expect a 10kyo Otzi like person to have even more similar Neanderthal Genetics. After thousands of years of migration and population replacement (plus new technologies) Neanderthal like genetics were not selective anymore for survival and slowly polymorphed out of our genome. We see an interesting anthropological trait amongst Neanderthal bodes; the oldest look more Neanderthal and the youngest look more modern. This could of been because of interbreeding, but my guess is polyphenism of two similar species adapting to a changing European Environment.

oriental
16-08-12, 22:20
Moesan is right, that makes absolutely no sense. And by the way, the point that haplogroup E is "African" it's only one side of the coin. It has been already postulated (and discussed here many times), that E wasn't in Africa since the begining. Maybe originated in Africa (not sure at all, we are dealing with a very distant past), but probably paragroup DE didn't according to the last clues. But the fact is that E (E1b1..etc.) was linked to Caucasoid groups since a very very long time, so it's not surprising that Einstein, Hitler and many other carriers were Caucasoids. Only haplogroups A and B (Y-DNA) seem to be purely African, we need more research concerning E and its origins, but at the moment the point that E wasn't completely African would explain fairly well the afiliation of most deep Sub-Saharan populations with West Eurasians (reported by Dienekes').

We are all Africans ultimately. The climate, diet and surroundings or environment changed us. Among the respectable genetists 'race' is a bogus issue. It is only good for identifying a person from a certain culture. All those skeletal and bone analyses only reflect old outdated 19th century science. If you go back 200,000 years we all looked like apes!

Knovas
16-08-12, 22:33
We are not talking about bones, my reply only concerned genes. And ancestry tools allowed us to perfectly distinguish Africans and non Africans: that's 21st century science, not fantasy.

It's not about going 200.000 years ago, it's just comparing modern genes.

MOESAN
16-08-12, 22:54
We are all Africans ultimately. The climate, diet and surroundings or environment changed us. Among the respectable genetists 'race' is a bogus issue. It is only good for identifying a person from a certain culture. All those skeletal and bone analyses only reflect old outdated 19th century science. If you go back 200,000 years we all looked like apes!

your are maybe right for "african" but it is a mistaking word:
geographically african in origin signifies "black" or "negroid" for the most of profane people and that is misleading - all our ancestors (even those of "subafricans" was in a more non-specialized mean for phénotypes: our present days forms came very slowly as a whole even if some kinds of genes can have underwent fast changes of distributions - and some surveys seam showing that some "archic" and "more modern" forms survived almost side by side long time enough in Africa and even that some ligneages underwent an archaizing back evolution: do not simplify too much -

MOESAN
16-08-12, 22:56
Homo Sapiens Sapiens may have gone through similar genetic shifts as Neanderthals for adaptive purposes 40ka, and this is why Otzi has more Neanderthal like genetics than modern humans (as he is older). I would expect a 10kyo Otzi like person to have even more similar Neanderthal Genetics. After thousands of years of migration and population replacement (plus new technologies) Neanderthal like genetics were not selective anymore for survival and slowly polymorphed out of our genome. We see an interesting anthropological trait amongst Neanderthal bodes; the oldest look more Neanderthal and the youngest look more modern. This could of been because of interbreeding, but my guess is polyphenism of two similar species adapting to a changing European Environment.

you made a point here - good remark -

MOESAN
16-08-12, 23:07
generally speaking, 'race' has no limit: we, humans, are LIKE THE ANIMALS/ We underwent sometimes some process of raciation (it is not a malediction, it is not a "nazi credo", nor obsolete -the difference with animals is that we recrossed: we are not part of world global big circle of marriages where everybody crosses with everybody! so some structures in phenotypes (caused by of genotypes) and genes exist in humanity whatever think the politically correct persons... we are "imparfect races" elements for some of us (less and less today, it is true) - every evolution can lead or can not lead to race, according to environment and life events - man do what e want, according to his conscience, it is an other debate, but conscience is not science

Kardu
16-08-12, 23:12
Humans can have some neanderthal in them ( but I agree we are different species) because they can impregnate a human woman, but a human cannot impregnate a neanderthal woman. ........some say, we have between 2 and 10% of neantheral genes running around

Then which one is the Neanderthal YDNA haplogroup among modern humans?

Kardu
16-08-12, 23:15
If cranial/skeletal classifications are biased/wrong then on what do you base your claim that 200k years ago we looked like apes? :)

oriental
16-08-12, 23:46
If cranial/skeletal classifications are biased/wrong then on what do you base your claim that 200k years ago we looked like apes? :)

Hg R1b is very high Cameroon. Cameroonians look African but they have "European" genes. I am sure they migrated back to Africa with their female mates. So how come the genes didn't dictate their phenotype?. It is the culture and environment that dictates what one looks like. There are Chinese Jews and Ethiopian Jews that claimed Jewish ancestry but they don't look like the modern JEWS but very Chinese and Ethiopian. Their looks were determined by the culture they lived in for thousands of years.

Kardu
16-08-12, 23:48
Hg R1b is very high Cameroon. Cameroonians look African but they have "European" genes. I am sure they migrated back to Africa with their female mates. So how come the genes didn't dictate their phenotype?. It is the culture and environment that dictates what one looks like. There are Chinese Jews and Ethiopian Jews that claimed Jewish ancestry but they don't look like the modern JEWS but very Chinese and Ethiopian. Their looks were determined by the culture they lived in for thousands of years. People from Cameroon look pretty different from Bantu Africans.

ebAmerican
16-08-12, 23:59
"They calculated the common ancestor to be about 353,000 years ago, and a complete separation of the ancestors of the species about 188,000 years ago." Interesting quote from wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

It has a complete separation date that equals the founding of mtDNA Eve.

It only took 165,000 years to fully separate neanderthal from sapiens. Sapiens mtDNA Eve is thought to have originated around 190,000 years ago. How long would it take to separate a new species from mtDNA Eve, or has it already happened? Are Eurasians on a path of full separation from Africans? Could there be two species that could be classified now or maybe 10 or 20ka in the future? Most likely humans will continue to evolve in different paths and some time in the future we will see different species again.

Kardu
17-08-12, 00:15
"They calculated the common ancestor to be about 353,000 years ago, and a complete separation of the ancestors of the species about 188,000 years ago." Interesting quote from wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

It has a complete separation date that equals the founding of mtDNA Eve.

It only took 165,000 years to fully separate neanderthal from sapiens. Sapiens mtDNA Eve is thought to have originated around 190,000 years ago. How long would it take to separate a new species from mtDNA Eve, or has it already happened? Are Eurasians on a path of full separation from Africans? Could there be two species that could be classified now or maybe 10 or 20ka in the future? Most likely humans will continue to evolve in different paths and some time in the future we will see different species again.

Although if technological development will continue like this, most probably natural evolution processes will be affected by genetic engineering...

oriental
17-08-12, 00:26
"They calculated the common ancestor to be about 353,000 years ago, and a complete separation of the ancestors of the species about 188,000 years ago." Interesting quote from wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

It has a complete separation date that equals the founding of mtDNA Eve.

It only took 165,000 years to fully separate neanderthal from sapiens. Sapiens mtDNA Eve is thought to have originated around 190,000 years ago. How long would it take to separate a new species from mtDNA Eve, or has it already happened? Are Eurasians on a path of full separation from Africans? Could there be two species that could be classified now or maybe 10 or 20ka in the future? Most likely humans will continue to evolve in different paths and some time in the future we will see different species again.

That's what you think! Humankind could be extinct from our political squabbles in maybe a few years.

ebAmerican
17-08-12, 00:31
Possibly, and the only one left would be the little jungle tribe in New Guinea, lol, and they would of known no different!

JFWR
17-08-12, 03:19
It basically shows that Ötzi is more Neanderthal than modern Eurasians, who are more Neanderthal than modern Africans.

Thank you.

I think the evidence is strong to support Neanderthal admixture.

skaheen15
17-08-12, 03:19
It's true that ultimately we are all Africans, it's well known that the direct ancestors of Homo Sapiens Sapiens left Africa for Europe and Asia about 60,000 YBP, give or take a millennium or two, and our relationship with Neanderthal is so close in any case that it seems like hair-splitting to ponder this question too much. These are the sort of issues that creationists and ID people use to promulgate the myth that there's some sort of dispute amongst scientists about man's ancestry.

Not saying it isn't worth discussing, but, the press makes far too big of a deal out of it.

JFWR
17-08-12, 03:22
Polyphenism could explain why Eurasians have ~5% similar Neanderthal genes. We see it in the wild all the time where a species will morph a trait of a stronger similar species for survival. I don't believe that humans ever sexually mingled with Neanderthals. I think they have a common ancestor and similar survival genetic traits became similar because of environmental effects to survive in MP/UP Europe. Same goes for Denisova and South East Asians. Africans never left and didn't need to genetically adapt to different climates. What we are seeing are cousin species adapting in similar ways to their environment. This would explain why we don't see any mDNA or yDNA of Neanderthals in modern humans.

Parralel evolution never constitutes the same genes, but different genes with similar effects that result from them. Eurasians have Neanderthal-associated genes. These are absent in Africa. This implies descent, not evolution alongside.

MDNA and YDNA can easily be lost over thousands of years, especially in the absence of Neanderthal men and women around to keep mating.

JFWR
17-08-12, 03:24
We are all Africans ultimately. The climate, diet and surroundings or environment changed us. Among the respectable genetists 'race' is a bogus issue. It is only good for identifying a person from a certain culture. All those skeletal and bone analyses only reflect old outdated 19th century science. If you go back 200,000 years we all looked like apes!

No, it is only amongst Standard Social Scientists that race is a bogus issue. There are hundreds of distinctive mutations associated with race, vast forensic differences, historical cultural differences, and other matters that separate the racial groups of the world from one another. It takes someone wilfully blind to ignore the reality of race, and that is why it has such horrifying prevalence in the political nonsense of the SSS paradigm.

Most people in the world are not in any meaningful sense "African". They are tens of thousands of years departed from Africa!

JFWR
17-08-12, 03:32
Hg R1b is very high Cameroon. Cameroonians look African but they have "European" genes. I am sure they migrated back to Africa with their female mates. So how come the genes didn't dictate their phenotype?. It is the culture and environment that dictates what one looks like. There are Chinese Jews and Ethiopian Jews that claimed Jewish ancestry but they don't look like the modern JEWS but very Chinese and Ethiopian. Their looks were determined by the culture they lived in for thousands of years.

So you discount centuries of interbreeding because of a maintained paternal line? Okay...Apparently, only Y-dna causes changes in racial makeup for you.

Same with the Jews in Ethiopia, China, and elsewhere. You discount centuries of interbreeding? You discount that Ethiopian Jews might even be a massive cultural conversion around the time of the Queen of Sheba? Or hell, even more historically at the apex of Jewish power in the region? That Jews didn't take Chinese wives or Chinese husbands?

Your thesis only works if these people maintained absolute homogeny amongst the populations.

ebAmerican
17-08-12, 17:37
Our genes and Neanderthal genes are 99.9% the same. It is the .1% difference that geneticists show around ~1-5% similar genes in that .1%. We share 99% of our genes with chimps. It's crazy what 1% can due.

"Parallel evolution never constitutes the same genes, but different genes with similar effects that result from them." JFWR are you sure about this? Can you give me a source for this claim? Neanderthals are currently classified as homo sapiens neanderthals. We are not talking about a far removed species, but one very closely linked with modern humans by a common ancestor 160,000 years removed (a very short time in evolutionary times). It also could be the genes that are represented as Neanderthal genes mutated out of existence in Africans, which is possible. It is possible that modern humans have shared genetic material with many archaic humans from a common ancestor, and those have not been identified yet or have been polymorphed out over the last 200,000 years. At the end of the day we need more genetic information from older samples to be sure.

JFWR
17-08-12, 18:04
"Parallel evolution never constitutes the same genes, but different genes with similar effects that result from them." JFWR are you sure about this? Can you give me a source for this claim?

I should probably not have said -never-. There are rare cases where the genetic mutation is so specific that it has to be the same gene reproduced multiple times by several species. However, in many of those cases it is a sort of "standing genetic variation" that is the source of this multiple origins of the same gene. That is, the gene was already existent in a population, but its prominence did not arise until the natural selective pressure was exerted. Think of how rare it is, for instance, that an entire population of insects should be killed by a single poison, on the account that it is almost certain that at least one of them has some degree of resistance which is then strongly selected for when they are the only remaining mating pairs.

They speak about it around here: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/parallel-adaptation-in-fish-same-genes-used-over-and-over/


Neanderthals are currently classified as homo sapiens neanderthals.

I'm pretty sure that Neanderthal man is Homo neanderthalensis. Neanderthal is not considered a subspecies of Homo sapiens from what I gather.


We are not talking about a far removed species, but one very closely linked with modern humans by a common ancestor 160,000 years removed (a very short time in evolutionary times). It also could be the genes that are represented as Neanderthal genes mutated out of existence in Africans, which is possible.

Neanderthal man left Africa way before Homo sapiens. Why would the Eurasians maintain the genes shared by Neanderthals, then? And how would the entire group of genes be lost in Africa?

ebAmerican
17-08-12, 18:06
A tidbit from http://dienekes.blogspot.com/; Mitochondrial Eve may be older

"If the earlier Pan-Homo split is accepted, it would appear that Mitochondrial Eve may have lived earlier than commonly thought, perhaps by a substantial amount relative to the current 177ky estimate. If that is the case, then she may very well have not been an anatomically modern human, perhaps a late H. heidelbergensis individual in a population that was on its way to becoming H. sapiens."

A possible link to shared genetic material between hominid species. mtDNA Eve may have been a great grandmother to both Neanderthal and Sapiens.

sparkey
17-08-12, 18:16
A possible link to shared genetic material between hominid species. mtDNA Eve may have been a great grandmother to both Neanderthal and Sapiens.

That doesn't seem likely, since the outlier is L0, which is just about the most African haplogroup there is. It's African on down the tree for a while after that. I would expect some indication of a Neanderthal outlier haplogroup or haplogroup cluster if mtDNA Eve's matrilineal descendants included both Neanderthals and Sapiens.

ebAmerican
17-08-12, 18:31
Neanderthal was never in Africa. It diverged from homo heidelbergensis in Eurasia. Homo sapiens diverged from homo heidelbergensis in Africa. Because both species are from a common ancestor, it's not a far cry that both would develop similar genes for environmental adaption. This explains why Eurasians have neanderthal like dna and Africans do not. The process is called genetic polyphenism. Because of shared lineage with a common ancestor Sapiens have the ability to converge into neanderthal and vice versa.

If mtDNA Eve out dates (a new study proposing an older linage for L) the archeological time frame for modern humans and puts her in an archeological time frame for an archaic hominid, then she may not have been sapiens but a possible heidelbergensis.

ebAmerican
17-08-12, 18:41
Sparky your right about neanderthal if it's heidelbergnesis grandmother was far removed from sapiens heidelbergnesis grandmother. We need a heidelbergnesis sample from where early sapiens in Africa lived to be sure. Heidelbergnesis is dated to 600,000 years ago, which is a lot of time for genetic drift compared to both Neanderthal and modern Sapiens. mtDNA is not the best for testing consistencies in the genome because of their volitility for mutation, so LO really doesn't tell us the whole story.

zanipolo
17-08-12, 23:09
Then which one is the Neanderthal YDNA haplogroup among modern humans?

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/26/dna-evidence-confirms-humans-and-neanderthals-mated/

1 to 4%

However, in August 2012, a study by scientists at the University of Cambridge has questioned this conclusion, hypothesising instead that the DNA overlap is a remnant of a common ancestor of both Neanderthals and modern humans.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-13)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-14)

LeBrok
18-08-12, 00:48
Neanderthal was never in Africa. It diverged from homo heidelbergensis in Eurasia. Homo sapiens diverged from homo heidelbergensis in Africa. Because both species are from a common ancestor, it's not a far cry that both would develop similar genes for environmental adaption. This explains why Eurasians have neanderthal like dna and Africans do not. The process is called genetic polyphenism. Because of shared lineage with a common ancestor Sapiens have the ability to converge into neanderthal and vice versa.

If mtDNA Eve out dates (a new study proposing an older linage for L) the archeological time frame for modern humans and puts her in an archeological time frame for an archaic hominid, then she may not have been sapiens but a possible heidelbergensis.

Sounds logical, but Neanderthals spent almost a million years in Europe, Home Sapiens about 50 thousand. Which one, do you think, was better adapted to Eurasian climatic conditions? Other question is, is 50 thousand years enough to develop full adaptation?
We should also mention that it is much easier to piggy back on already developed adaptational traits of Neanderthals, then wait for mutations to happen spontaneously. Off course, as long as they could produce hybrid offspring, it was the easiest way to use some Neanderthal genome to conquer north faster.