New Study: Man Possibly NOT Related to Neanderthal

JFWR

Banned
Messages
305
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
New York City
Ethnic group
Irish, English, French, German, Swedish, and Finnish
Y-DNA haplogroup
I-m223
mtDNA haplogroup
H64
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/sciencet...ities-result-interbreeding.html#ixzz23bUcjPod
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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').
 
John Hawks reiterates a lot of what we've been arguing about the original topic, and goes into detail about heterogeneity:

John Hawks said:
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] 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, 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:

John Hawks said:
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]. Aaron Sams and I downloaded the data and have been carrying out several different kinds of comparisons. A picture:
otzi-1000-genomes-all-diploid-comparison.png

I'd like to see the model of African population structure that could explain this result...
 
...and Dienekes is on a quest:

Dienekes said:
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 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!
 
John Hawks reiterates 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.
 
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.
 
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
 

This thread has been viewed 33061 times.

Back
Top