Barriers to crossbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans -discussion

It's literally in the paper you cited.

Do me a favor and copy the relevant bits.



No. You are ignorant. Read the supplemental data:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/a...id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0024024.t001

The Neanderthal skulls which deviate toward Erectus are pre-Neanderthals (Feldhofer 1) or Neanderthals which are known to deviate from the classical Neanderthal cranial shape (La Quina 5, all Shanidar remains, Spy 2).

You are too ignorant to be having these discussions.

Moving goalposts. Lol, the very name Neanderthal derives from Feldhofer.


They weren't.

Yes, especially in functional regions. This has been discussed to death.
 
No there is a thorax and a handful of ribs which you can't make any observations from; Kebara is the only Neanderthal specimen with a complete set of ribs.

Furthermore, Feldhofer 1 is a pre-Neanderthal.

According to who?
 
This isn't the flat earth society, and it's not going to become a haven for such people, thereby bringing disrepute to the site.
 
The evidence for Neanderthal introgression in to modern humans suggests the opposite. Interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans was sex biased, with Neanderthal male+sapiens female pairings being the predominant coupling that produced modern non-Africans. Modern human mtDNA lineages are also present in Neanderthal fossils -- so far no modern human Y-DNA in Neanderthals or mtDNA in modern humans.
Denisovan+modern human couplings were also predominantly Denisovan male+modern human female.
Probably, modern human women found the Neanderthal men more attractive because they were more handsome, physically stronger and more intelligent and has more resources and better skills than modern humans (it is known for instance they mastered dry distillation of birch bark 80,000 years ago).
The Neanderthal+modern human hybrids were the most successful humans to ever walk the Earth; the majority of human beings alive today are Neanderthal+modern human hybrids. Non-Neanderthal hybrids (subsaharan Africans) have suffered immensely at the hands of Neanderthal-modern human hybrids for thousands of years. The decrease in Neanderthal ancestry over time is a natural consequence of the fact that they had much smaller populations than modern humans.
very intresting history, but could this mean that the birth of pale skinned europeans occured thanking to this and that esquimos are not white even do they have being living over the north pole for at least 20000 years because of a lack of nehanderthal admixture?

This would even put in doubt the idea of adaptation of melanine by climate and could even be a strong argument against evolutionism, very intresting.
+what do you personally think about Svante Pääbo's studies?
Thank you for your time.
 
Eskimos are relatively new migrants to their areas. In addition, they eat an almost completely fish diet, i.e. no plant based foods. The leading theory is that when people in northern climates stop consuming all that Vitamin D heavy fish and turn to Vitamin D lacking plant based foods skin lightens in order to absorb more Vitamin D from the sun.

In addition, the de-pigmentation snps present in humans DID NOT EXIST IN NEANDERTHALS. They were selected for in humans over the years.

Are any of you people ever going to actually read some papers before spouting off with the same old drivel?
 
LOL clearly Neanderthals were so advanced that they developed industrial civilization and Internet porn, stopped having kids, and started shipping in modern humans as cheap labour. But they were just too nice to colonize tropical countries. That must be it. Those superior sexy Neanderthals.

Dude your therapist must be writing some interesting monographs.

I think they made a spacecraft and moved to another planet, and now they are laughing at us primitivs.
 
Eskimos are relatively new migrants to their areas. In addition, they eat an almost completely fish diet, i.e. no plant based foods. The leading theory is that when people in northern climates stop consuming all that Vitamin D heavy fish and turn to Vitamin D lacking plant based foods skin lightens in order to absorb more Vitamin D from the sun.

In addition, the de-pigmentation snps present in humans DID NOT EXIST IN NEANDERTHALS. They were selected for in humans over the years.

Are any of you people ever going to actually read some papers before spouting off with the same old drivel?


well it makes sense, but how do you explain the several cranial and bone proportion differences among all the subraces, why there are out there nordic, noric, dinaric, goric, alpinid, atlantic, atlanto mediterranean, east baltid, baltid, etc. phenotypes and why there are arm proportion differences, why are there so many biological difference, for example the doses of drugs in hospital got to be set on the basis of race, other wise you could give to a subsaharian the dose of morphine for a white and kill him.
Than, even if it doesn't belong to this thread but evolutionism hasn't been prooved, not only but it has been put in a corner by several arguments, now i don't have all the quotes here, but the situation is this.
 
@Angela
i need your opinion for an idea of a thread argument that came to me in mind: lately i have seen lots of people claiming, with some evidence and facts, that civilization, agriculture and so sedentarism degenerates us mentally (i.q., cognitive abilities, sharpness, communication abilities) and physically, and that lots of diseases and plagues in the past have spread mostly to urban cities instead of countryside, and how people were less exposed to illnesses such as diabetes, leucemia, cancer, etc.
Plus as an argument they have the inexistence of homosexuality before civilizations, and other stuff.

This theory is mostly pushed by survivalists and by a guy called Varg Vikernes on his YT channel thulean perspective.
I know the thread could easly fall into anarchy and every retarded could come and spread lies and misinformation, but you know, it could be a funny social experiment :D
 
very intresting history, but could this mean that the birth of pale skinned europeans occured thanking to this and that esquimos are not white even do they have being living over the north pole for at least 20000 years because of a lack of nehanderthal admixture?

This would even put in doubt the idea of adaptation of melanine by climate and could even be a strong argument against evolutionism, very intresting.
+what do you personally think about Svante Pääbo's studies?
Thank you for your time.

Not at all. Firstly because Eskimos also have Neanderthal ancestry, secondly because the pigmentation-related gene alleles found in Neanderthals ARE NOT the same ones that are most decisive to the light skin in either modern Europeans or modern East Asians. By the way, we already know, from various pre-Neolithic Europeans' autosomal DNA, that Western & Central Europeans were not light-skinned (and the first Europeans, who didn't contribute much to the present Europeans, like Oase1, were not light-skinned either - and let me just remind you that Oase 1 was the ancient DNA sample with highest and most recent Neanderthal ancestry). As far as I know Europe was still geographically Europe at that time. Convergent evolution just happens, people.

Besides, the much less relevant pigmentation-related genes of Neanderthals still present in modern humans are associated with both lighter AND ALSO darker features in hair and skin - so Neanderthal were probably not all "white Paleo-Europeans" as some people stilll seem to believe. Read the papers, the answers are all there.

Also, it is obviously ludicrous that someone describes non-Africans as a simple result of Neanderthal male + AMH female when their contribution to the modern gene pool is less than 2% in non-Africans, and even the early human specimen with most Neanderthal ancestry (Oase1) had only 5-11% Neanderthal ancestry - which obviously indicates that most of his ancestors were humans. There's also the very simple fact that ALL HUMAN Y-DNA haplogroups, without any exception found up to the present day, fit perfectly well in the phylogenetic tree of the ancestral African haplogroup BT and ultimately date back to the very same haplogroup A.

The mutations all clearly descend from a common African haplogroup not found elsewhere. It's so "bizarre" that Neanderthal males would've been so important, so much smarter, stronger and fitter, but their haplogroups would vanish into thin air and their autosomal contribution would be reduced to a tiny amount of the modern genome of non-Africans.

Besides, it's so intriguing that the only Neanderthal descendants that ever managed to avoid extinction were exactly those heavily (I mean heeeeeavily) mixed with Homo sapiens sapiens, while all the others supposedly so much "better" than the AMH died out. And there is even the case of Basal Eurasian ancestry widely present in all of West Eurasia (which obviously indicates that it sucessfully expanded and mixed with other Neanderthal-admixed populations) without needing to have none of that "superior Neanderthal ancestry".

All of these incongruences are bizarre because of course that scenario did not happen.

Maybe that guy didn't even consider the possibility that, given the very wide genetic differentiation between AMH and Neanderthals, only the children of a Neanderthal male + AMH female couple were fertile.
 
Not at all. Firstly because Eskimos also have Neanderthal ancestry, secondly because the pigmentation-related gene alleles found in Neanderthals ARE NOT the same ones that are most decisive to the light skin in either modern Europeans or modern East Asians. By the way, we already know, from various pre-Neolithic Europeans' autosomal DNA, that Western & Central Europeans were not light-skinned (and the first Europeans like Oase1 were not light-skinned either - and let me just remind you that Oase 1 was the ancient DNA sample with highest and most recent Neanderthal ancestry). As far as I know Europe was still geographically Europe at that time. Convergent evolution just happens, people.

Besides, the much less relevant pigmentation-related genes of Neanderthals still present in modern humans are associated with both lighter AND ALSO darker features in hair and skin - so Neanderthal were probably not all "white Paleo-Europeans" as some people stilll seem to believe. Read the papers, the answers are all there.

Also, it is obviously ludicrous that someone describes non-Africans as a simple result of Neanderthal male + AMH female when their contribution to the modern gene pool is less than 2% in non-Africans, and even the early human specimen with most Neanderthal ancestry (Oase1) had only 5-11% Neanderthal ancestry - which obviously indicates that most of his ancestors were humans. There's also the very simple fact that ALL HUMAN Y-DNA haplogroups, without any exception found up to the present day, fit perfectly well in the phylogenetic tree of the ancestral African haplogroup BT and ultimately date back to the very same haplogroup A.

The mutations all clearly descend from a common African haplogroup not found elsewhere. It's so "bizarre" that Neanderthal males would've been so important, so much smarter, stronger and fitter, but their haplogroups would vanish into thin air and their autosomal contribution would be reduced to a tiny amount of the modern genome of non-Africans. It's bizarre because of course that did not happen.

Maybe that guy didn't even consider the possibility that, given the very wide genetic differentiation between AMH and Neanderthals, only the children of a Neanderthal male + AMH female couple were fertile.

nice arguments there, but i would add that nehanderthal genes of wich we dispose today come from mixed nehanderthal-sapiens samples, Now, could the possession of purr nehanderthal DNA change the situation?? THX
 
nice arguments there, but i would add that nehanderthal genes of wich we dispose today come from mixed nehanderthal-sapiens samples, Now, could the possession of purr nehanderthal DNA change the situation?? THX

That isn't correct. As early as 2010 scientists sequenced the complete genome of 3 fully Neanderthal samples:

The researchers compared DNA samples from the bones of three female Neanderthals who lived some 40,000 years ago in Europe to samples from five present-day humans from China, France, Papua New Guinea, southern Africa and western Africa. This provided the first genome-wide look at the similarities and differences of the closest evolutionary relative to humans, and maybe even identifying, for the first time, genetic variations that gave rise to modern humans.

SOURCE:
https://www.genome.gov/27539119/2010-release-complete-neanderthal-genome-sequenced/
 
well it makes sense, but how do you explain the several cranial and bone proportion differences among all the subraces, why there are out there nordic, noric, dinaric, goric, alpinid, atlantic, atlanto mediterranean, east baltid, baltid, etc. phenotypes and why there are arm proportion differences, why are there so many biological difference, for example the doses of drugs in hospital got to be set on the basis of race, other wise you could give to a subsaharian the dose of morphine for a white and kill him.
Than, even if it doesn't belong to this thread but evolutionism hasn't been prooved, not only but it has been put in a corner by several arguments, now i don't have all the quotes here, but the situation is this.

You won't find credible and relevant anthropologists, geneticists, etc. who advocate creationism.

@Angela
i need your opinion for an idea of a thread argument that came to me in mind: lately i have seen lots of people claiming, with some evidence and facts, that civilization, agriculture and so sedentarism degenerates us mentally (i.q., cognitive abilities, sharpness, communication abilities)

The highest scoring populations in IQ testing and other measures of intelligence are in the Far East, Western to Northern Europe, and Euro Jews. Populations with long histories of agriculture and/or urban dwelling.

and physically

Look up gold medalists and other measures of physicality.

and that lots of diseases and plagues in the past have spread mostly to urban cities instead of countryside, and how people were less exposed to illnesses such as diabetes, leucemia, cancer, etc.

They had a noticeably higher shot of getting killed by a man or from exposure at birth. See also:

http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/

Plus as an argument they have the inexistence of homosexuality before civilizations, and other stuff.

There's plenty of evidence of homosexual behavior in non-state societies.

This theory is mostly pushed by survivalists and by a guy called Varg Vikernes on his YT channel thulean perspective.

Varg is a murderous crackpot whose wife claims placentas are magical.
 
Last edited:
That isn't correct. As early as 2010 scientists sequenced the complete genome of 3 fully Neanderthal samples:

The researchers compared DNA samples from the bones of three female Neanderthals who lived some 40,000 years ago in Europe to samples from five present-day humans from China, France, Papua New Guinea, southern Africa and western Africa. This provided the first genome-wide look at the similarities and differences of the closest evolutionary relative to humans, and maybe even identifying, for the first time, genetic variations that gave rise to modern humans.

SOURCE:
https://www.genome.gov/27539119/2010-release-complete-neanderthal-genome-sequenced/

Ah, ok, i was a little bit behind with infos about it, thx for the info.
 
Well but first of all Abiogenesis wich is the principle withou wich you could not have life, so no evolutionism, has been prooven mathematically impossible, it has such a low probability to have happened without a superior intelligence to make it almost impossible, than in order to create DNA you need amminoacids wich cannot be created randomly, then DNA is logically speaking a request of information something that cannot be created by non living forms, a request must have an intelligence behind it who can formulate the datas of the request so mathematically is impossible that you can have a request of info from a non intelligent entity, i can tell you thats as an informatician, so someone that has to do with logic and limited intelligence logics, such as a computer, that it is impossible, simple, than it is meaningless that a giraffe because she needed to reach some high trees extended her neck, so meanwhile the milion of yeara that she was waiting for the neck to get longer what was she eating?? and then how do you biologically give to a fish the request to make him have a pair of feet in order to walk on the earth, and meanwhile his evolution his uncomplete feet what were needed for??
Than the carnivore plants, it is said that they were herbivore before but due to lack of solar light in some regions converted to insect eating, in the exact middle of her evolution what was she eating thinking that the digestive sack was still incomplete, and at this point her ability to capture sunlight were compromised by the partial transformation of her leaf into a digestive sack??
Then explain me the carpal discontinuity ( hope i pronounced it correctly :D ) where a lot of unique fossils were found, and they didn't have any relation with other living form, then if there was evolutionism find me the fossils of species in the middle of their evolution, for example find me a meateating plant wich is in the middle of her stage and that both eats meat and absorbs sunlight.
Then i have even more argument but right now i think I wrote enough.
 
@Gannicus,
In addition to the information in Ygorcs nice post, we know that among the areas purged of Neanderthal dna are precisely those involved in higher order thinking and the speech centers of the brain. So, it is extremely likely that they were more primitive than we are.

Furthermore, one of the high purge areas involves the testes. In all likelihood, the male hybrids were sterile.

When some of the first discoveries were made, David Reich, intimately involved with Svante Paabo in the work, said that the two groups were on the verge of biological compatibility. It made sense to me then and it makes sense to me now, given all this evidence and the fact that we were separated for hundreds of thousands of years.
 
well it makes sense, but how do you explain the several cranial and bone proportion differences among all the subraces, why there are out there nordic, noric, dinaric, goric, alpinid, atlantic, atlanto mediterranean, east baltid, baltid, etc. phenotypes and why there are arm proportion differences, why are there so many biological difference, for example the doses of drugs in hospital got to be set on the basis of race, other wise you could give to a subsaharian the dose of morphine for a white and kill him.
Than, even if it doesn't belong to this thread but evolutionism hasn't been prooved, not only but it has been put in a corner by several arguments, now i don't have all the quotes here, but the situation is this.

The differences between these so called sub-races (nordic, noric, dinaric, goric, alpinid, atlantic, etc.) are so incredibly minor and superficial that I think even minor selective processes and mere genetic drift can cause those outcomes after thousands of years. People seem to be unaware of how selection, bottlenecks and genetic drift can act surprisingly rapidly to cause such minor phenotypic differences (or do people really think that a larger or a wider nose is such a big deal, or a loss or increase of pigmentation is all that transformative?). Even the physical differences between two starkly distinct populations, like West Africans and Japanese people, are quite minor on a broad scale if you compare Sapiens sapiens morphology with that of even our closest cousins like Neanderthals.
 
Well but first of all Abiogenesis wich is the principle withou wich you could not have life, so no evolutionism, has been prooven mathematically impossible, it has such a low probability to have happened without a superior intelligence to make it almost impossible, than in order to create DNA you need amminoacids wich cannot be created randomly, then DNA is logically speaking a request of information something that cannot be created by non living forms, a request must have an intelligence behind it who can formulate the datas of the request so mathematically is impossible that you can have a request of info from a non intelligent entity, i can tell you thats as an informatician, so someone that has to do with logic and limited intelligence logics, such as a computer, that it is impossible, simple, than it is meaningless that a giraffe because she needed to reach some high trees extended her neck, so meanwhile the milion of yeara that she was waiting for the neck to get longer what was she eating?? and then how do you biologically give to a fish the request to make him have a pair of feet in order to walk on the earth, and meanwhile his evolution his uncomplete feet what were needed for??
Than the carnivore plants, it is said that they were herbivore before but due to lack of solar light in some regions converted to insect eating, in the exact middle of her evolution what was she eating thinking that the digestive sack was still incomplete, and at this point her ability to capture sunlight were compromised by the partial transformation of her leaf into a digestive sack??
Then explain me the carpal discontinuity ( hope i pronounced it correctly :D ) where a lot of unique fossils were found, and they didn't have any relation with other living form, then if there was evolutionism find me the fossils of species in the middle of their evolution, for example find me a meateating plant wich is in the middle of her stage and that both eats meat and absorbs sunlight.
Then i have even more argument but right now i think I wrote enough.

Not only is there a lack of respected authorities who'd agree, but not a single religion's claims on the birth and development of life/world stands. To say nothing how events like the Exodus have been shown to more or less have never happened.
 
@Gannicus,
In addition to the information in Ygorcs nice post, we know that among the areas purged of Neanderthal dna are precisely those involved in higher order thinking and the speech centers of the brain. So, it is extremely likely that they were more primitive than we are.
Furthermore, one of the high purge areas involves the testes. In all likelihood, the male hybrids were sterile.
When some of the first discoveries were made, David Reich, intimately involved with Svante Paabo in the work, said that the two groups were on the verge of biological compatibility. It made sense to me then and it makes sense to me now, given all this evidence and the fact that we were separated for hundreds of thousands of years.
Ok, thanks for your points, you never stop learning on eupedia ;)
 
Not only is there a lack of respected authorities who'd agree, but not a single religion's claims on the birth and development of life/world stands. To say nothing how events like the Exodus have been shown to more or less have never happened.


To clarify, i am not that kind of creationist that you think but still evolutionism makes sense mostly on paper, for example we have an idea on how a specie could be and how we are now, but what about the mid species?
Look i am in a period of indecision between creationism and evolutionism, i have been an evolutionism for my entire life and am currently reconsidering my religious/scientofoc views, so please help me solving some phisical limits to evolutionism:
First of all, can you explain me abiogenesis and how an almost infinite series of most likely impossible coincidences have brought us to what we have today, like cmon, some things such as DNA are to complex to be randomly created, The DNA is a request of information, a request can only be formulated by a sobre well defined intelligence with power of will, the only way DNA can come to existence is throug other DNA generating it or from an intelligence capable of creating and destroing by its will, so an entity that can violate the basic principle of: nothing can be created, nothing can be destroyed, everything can be transformed.
So sort of speaking, a GOD.
If you are gonna help me find an answer to these doubts i would be infinitely glad to you.
 
First of all, can you explain me abiogenesis and how an almost infinite series of most likely impossible coincidences have brought us to what we have today, like cmon, some things such as DNA are to complex to be randomly created, The DNA is a request of information, a request can only be formulated by a sobre well defined intelligence with power of will, the only way DNA can come to existence is throug other DNA generating it or from an intelligence capable of creating and destroing by its will, so an entity that can violate the basic principle of: nothing can be created, nothing can be destroyed, everything can be transformed.
So sort of speaking, a GOD.

First of all you must know that abiogenesis and other hypotheses pertaining to the origin of life have nothing to do with the evolution theory, which pertains to the way that species change, diversify, diverge or converge throughout the time after life already caught on. Evolutionism is the best scientific explanation irrespective of whether God created the cosmos and life itself on earth directly or not, which is a totally different matter (and in my opinion - my being a religious believer notwithstanding - God is a supreme creative intelligence, and not a magician with a magic wand making things pop out into existence without any reasonable material explanation. Pope Francis has a similar understanding, by the way).

I think your issues may not be with evolutionism, but with a confused notion, common among creationists, that evolutionism has anything to do with the origin of life or even of the cosmos itself and that it necessarily and automatically negates the possibility that something divine was behind it all. That's not the case. The evolution theory has all the concrete scientific evidences in its favour. Creationism does not. Mutations happen and can be seen all the time, selection happens under different (natural and social) environmental pressures, some individuals in any species have more reproductive success than others. It's just that. What you say about the origin of DNA and of life can be discussed... but it has nothing to do with the theory of natural selection.

The largest (and one of the most traditional) of all Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church, has accepted the evolution theory since many decades ago, because it simply looked at all the evidences and made the obvious conclusion that not only is it the more plausible explanation for the variation we see in living beings (and we have seen diversification of species happening in real time in the last decades and centuries, it's not just a hypothetical scenario or something studied in fossils and now in ancient DNA), but also, and decisively, that it does not negate the fundaments of the Catholic theology. It just explains how the creation developed after life began, nothing else.

The Genesis was never a scientific book anyway, but a religious and moral book, and it's clear - not my opinion, this is the official understanding of many great theologians - that the Genesis is an allegory about the relation between nature and humankind, the whole creation, and God. It shouldn't be read as a scientific paper, its authors were not looking for objectivity, far less for empirical experiments and conclusions about material processes.
 

This thread has been viewed 31061 times.

Back
Top