Do modern Europeans partly descend from Neanderthal ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anyway its something for you all to think about

this is just my theory
 
New research shows that every non-african person have 4% of "neanderthal" gen... But I'm not an expert in that field. :cool-v:
 
I have read somewhere that Sioux people believe that white people are aliens who came to Earth from other planets... that is also how they explain why white people are so careless about the planet and not in touch with nature....
 
New research shows that every non-african person have 4% of "neanderthal" gen... But I'm not an expert in that field. :cool-v:


Latest research shows Europeans with up to 8% and Asians 1-2%. Black Africans have 0%.
European Neanderthal DNA is also different from what is found in Asians.
 
that is also how they explain why white people are so careless about the planet and not in touch with nature....

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

Nowadays it is mostly developing countries that destroy nature. Tropical countries like Brazil, Nigeria or Indonesia chop down thousands of square km of forest every year (well it won't last long in Nigeria since 90% of the forest have already disappeared). China is the world's biggest polluter, especially in terms of chemical and toxic wastes, which are rarely treated or recycled like in Europe.
 
I have read somewhere that Sioux people believe that white people are aliens who came to Earth from other planets... that is also how they explain why white people are so careless about the planet and not in touch with nature....
Are you really sure of what you say ? This is India and China :

polluted_river.jpg



article-0-011072AE00000578-863_468x317.jpg



blog


pollution-around-the-world2-.jpg


7b92a5cd86f8.jpg


India.jpg


9fe6b701_ANP_9282022.jpg


pd1604386.jpg
 
I suppose you have never been to Africa, India or China to say such a thing. African and Indian cities are like big open-air rubbish dumps. Most places have no sewer, no waste collection, no recycling, and rubbish just piles up along the roads.
Nowadays it is mostly developing countries that destroy nature. Tropical countries like Brazil, Nigeria or Indonesia chop down thousands of square km of forest every year (well it won't last long in Nigeria since 90% of the forest have already disappeared). China is the world's biggest polluter, especially in terms of chemical and toxic wastes, which are rarely treated or recycled like in Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another assertion by those studying the Neanderthal dna that states unequivocally that interbreeding has occurred: http://www.genome.gov/27539119
 
Thanks elghund, I concur.
 
IJ and IJK haplogroups have never been found in nature, they've never been seen anywhere. They have just been "theorized" to exist, in order to explain the existence of haplogroup I, which is not tied to any other human yDNA haplogroup except for through these hypothesized IJ and IJK haplos.

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



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

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



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




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




Neanderthal blood would have passed through y-haplogroup I. I2a2 being strong in the Balkans, this is where you should look. E-V13 replaced a lot of older I lineages in the southern Balkans, but did marry with native women of haplogroup U4, U5, H1, H3, etc. The same is true in North Africa. All native men of European descent have been killed or made not to pass their Y-DNA, but over half of maternal lineages in northern Morocco and north-west Algeria are of European descent. Neanderthal genes can pass just as well through mothers as fathers. Y-DNA is only one side of the story.
 
Incorrect. Neanderthal did carry genes for light eyes and light hair (particularly red). Modern Europeans have that gene. PC placating geneticists try to deny this by asserting that it's not the same gene that Neanderthal had. Of course it isn't, it's got tens of thousands of years worth of mutation, but that's pretty obviously where it came from.

That's what I also hypothesised .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nowadays it is mostly developing countries that destroy nature. Tropical countries like Brazil, Nigeria or Indonesia chop down thousands of square km of forest every year (well it won't last long in Nigeria since 90% of the forest have already disappeared). China is the world's biggest polluter, especially in terms of chemical and toxic wastes, which are rarely treated or recycled like in Europe.
 
Another interesting item is the "disappearance" of Neanderthal, which supposedly happened at the end of the 10-25k year era during which Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal coexisted in civilizations. They also "disappeared" in the very same regions that Cro-Mag and Neanderthal coexisted during the ice age, in the various "refugia" regions where they all fled to survive the Ice Age. Curiously, after the end of the Ice Age, Neanderthal had "disappeared", and basically modern Europeans supposedly emerged. Further these modern Europeans strangely are the only population which regularly extol expressions of Neanderthal traits (prominent brow ridge, occipital bun, sloped forehead, etc.), the only population which has the broad diversity of hair and eye color which Neanderthal had, the same genes for freckling and sensitivity to sunlight, and genes which regulate brain size and density of neural matter which Neanderthal had, but African Homo Sapien did not... Hmmm....

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

These statistics sound wrong. Have sources?

Surely, all Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups present in modern Europeans are African Homo Sapiens in origin, rather than Neanderthal. That puts a limit on the amount of autosomal DNA Neanderthals could have introduced, especially considering that mtDNA in particular has a relatively low bottlenecking rate and little selection pressure. I don't discount the hypothesis that certain autosomal traits could have been introduced via Neanderthal interbreeding and then selected for, but the total autosomal input can't be nearly as high as you're suggesting.
 
IJ and IJK haplogroups have never been found in nature, they've never been seen anywhere. They have just been "theorized" to exist, in order to explain the existence of haplogroup I, which is not tied to any other human yDNA haplogroup except for through these hypothesized IJ and IJK haplos.

You're right that IJ and IJK are currently unobserved (as is I* for that matter), but you're wrong about IJ and IJK being purely hypothesized. I is tied to J via common SNPs that mutate very slowly, so for IJ not to have existed at one point is a statistical impossibility. Same goes for IJ being tied to K to make IJK. Don't fool yourself into thinking that Haplogroup I does not share a common ancestor with J, probably from Asia, and a common African ancestor with the rest of the modern human Y-DNA haplogroups.
 
The dual origins notion is about the only reasonable contribution Coon made to evolutionary / physical anthropology. The man was wrong on just about everything else... A nut-job.

It could be worse. I mean, at least he's not Gould or Boas :LOL:
 
Eventually enough hard evidence will be accumulated that provides sufficient proof of Cro-Magnon / Neanderthal mixing.

Funny how now that the Neanderthal issue has been raised they have juggled back and forth on what a "Cro-Magnon" actually is. Apparently it was decided a "Cro-Magnon" means something different in Europe than it does for everyone else, then when this was pointed out they ended up deciding that Cro-Magnon was not actually a scientific or anthropological distinction.
 
You're right that IJ and IJK are currently unobserved (as is I* for that matter), but you're wrong about IJ and IJK being purely hypothesized. I is tied to J via common SNPs that mutate very slowly, so for IJ not to have existed at one point is a statistical impossibility. Same goes for IJ being tied to K to make IJK. Don't fool yourself into thinking that Haplogroup I does not share a common ancestor with J, probably from Asia, and a common African ancestor with the rest of the modern human Y-DNA haplogroups.

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

This thread has been viewed 306167 times.

Back
Top