New Study: Man Possibly NOT Related to Neanderthal

[ebAmerican]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If cranial/skeletal classifications are biased/wrong then on what do you base your claim that 200k years ago we looked like apes?

 

[oriental]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

"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]

Possibly, and the only one left would be the little jungle tribe in New Guinea, lol, and they would of known no different!

 

[JFWR]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.