Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neanderthals, Humans Interbred—First Solid DNA Evidence -Most of us have some Neanderthal genes
nationalgeographic ^ | May 6, 2010 | Ker Than

Posted on 05/07/2010 12:04:44 PM PDT by JoeProBono

The next time you're tempted to call some oaf a Neanderthal, you might want to take a look in the mirror.

According to a new DNA study, most humans have a little Neanderthal in them—at least 1 to 4 percent of a person's genetic makeup.

The study uncovered the first solid genetic evidence that "modern" humans—or Homo sapiens—interbred with their Neanderthal neighbors, who mysteriously died out about 30,000 years ago.

What's more, the Neanderthal-modern human mating apparently took place in the Middle East, shortly after modern humans had left Africa, not in Europe—as has long been suspected.

"We can now say that, in all probability, there was gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans," lead study author Ed Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz, said in a prepared statement.

That's no surprise to anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, whose skeleton-based claims of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding—previously contradicted with DNA evidence—appear to have been vindicated by the new gene study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science.

"They've finally seen the light ... because it's been obvious to many us that this happened," said Trinkaus, of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, who wasn't part of the new study.

Trinkhaus adds that most living humans probably have much more Neanderthal DNA than the new study suggests.

"One to 4 percent is truly a minimum," Trinkaus added. "But is it 10 percent? Twenty percent? I have no idea."


TOPICS: Science; Society
KEYWORDS: cromags; dna; genes; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; jpb; neandertal; neandertals; neanderthal; neanderthals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: allmendream

I will wait for peer review.


41 posted on 05/07/2010 12:37:36 PM PDT by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: airborne


42 posted on 05/07/2010 12:39:01 PM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
Thanks!

It is also an oversimplification to say that because our genes are 98% the same as Chimpanzee genes that we are somehow 98% the same as a Chimpanzee; or that because our genome is some 94% the same, that we are some 94% the same.

That is analogous to claiming that because the tools you used to make your building were 98% the same as my tools, and your instructions were 94% the same; that our two different resulting buildings will be recognizably around 94% the same in capacity, resources, layout, function, etc.

A small change in DNA can make a HUGE difference. And huge changes in DNA can make no difference whatsoever.

But the difference between DNA sequences is an excellent way of estimating how closely related two species are and how long it has been since they shared a common ancestor.

43 posted on 05/07/2010 12:39:13 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
before learning anything about what you seek to opine upon?
44 posted on 05/07/2010 12:40:14 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

I intend to look into this jean theory further. I hope that I can get some stimulus money to get to the bottom of this!

45 posted on 05/07/2010 12:40:49 PM PDT by Young Werther ("Quae cum ita sunt" Since these things are so!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The snarky replies are usually attempts at feigned ignorance, to make the TOE seem absurd.


46 posted on 05/07/2010 12:42:32 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Crawled into a cave? And then into a well? Perhaps he kept digging.


47 posted on 05/07/2010 12:43:24 PM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Interestingly, lions have been interbred with tigers. They are called “Ligers”. Probably not in the wild though, they don’t really share the same habitat.


48 posted on 05/07/2010 12:44:16 PM PDT by Frenchtown Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: al baby

Yeah. And some of us more than others.


49 posted on 05/07/2010 12:44:50 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY

I was just thinking “beer goggles” are not a new invention.


50 posted on 05/07/2010 12:47:43 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Does this mean that neanderthal and homo sapiens had a common ancestor or does it mean they came from two distinct lines and then bred together 30,000 years ago?
I didn’t think you could breed together and have offspring unless you had a common ancestor to begin with and were very genetically similar.


51 posted on 05/07/2010 12:51:36 PM PDT by Jessarah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Frenchtown Dan
Due to epigenetic effects, there is a big difference between a “Liger” and a “Tigon”. One has a Tiger dad and a Lion mom, and the other has a Lion dad and a Tiger mom.

The differences in the reciprocal crosses is most likely due to the different reproductive strategies of both species.

A Tigon has been successfully bred with a Tiger to produce a “Ti-Tigon”. This Ti-Tigon could re-merge with a Tiger population, bringing a certain % of Lion ancestry to that population.

Similarly, our hypothetical “Humanderthal” could re-merge with a human population, bringing a certain % of Neanderthal ancestry to that population.

52 posted on 05/07/2010 12:55:47 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: east1234

BEST post....


53 posted on 05/07/2010 12:57:15 PM PDT by antivenom (OBASTARD must become a "Half Term President" * Impeach the anti-Constitution Bastard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jessarah
Both!

We had a common ancestor, we diverged into two distinct populations, and these two lines combined in a limited fashion by crossbreeds sometime prior to 30,000 years ago when the Neanderthal died out.

Yes, usually fertility between two different species is dependent upon a recent common ancestor, which implies/demands a certain level of genetic similarity. The big barrier to fertile cross breeds is when there is a different number of chromosomes in the parents. Not impossible to overcome, but it does increase infertility.

Similarly, Wolves and Coyotes share a recent common ancestor, AND they came from two distinct lines that have bred together years ago. Coyotes and Wolves developed into two distinct species, but two species that can and DO produce fertile offspring. One can, through DNA analysis, estimate the amount of Wolf ancestry in your average Coyote population - which will show how prevalent these crossbreedings were (or are).

54 posted on 05/07/2010 1:01:09 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I have been following this somewhat for years. Nothing to get excited about.
55 posted on 05/07/2010 1:03:46 PM PDT by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Pretty interesting but...

“It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature”.

One of these days someone’s going to figure out how to cross a mosquito and a condor. Just try spraying Raid on that thing.


56 posted on 05/07/2010 1:04:41 PM PDT by Frenchtown Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Both! We had a common ancestor, we diverged into two distinct populations, and these two lines combined in a limited fashion by crossbreeds sometime prior to 30,000 years ago when the Neanderthal died out. Yes, usually fertility between two different species is dependent upon a recent common ancestor, which implies/demands a certain level of genetic similarity. The big barrier to fertile cross breeds is when there is a different number of chromosomes in the parents. Not impossible to overcome, but it does increase infertility. Similarly, Wolves and Coyotes share a recent common ancestor, AND they came from two distinct lines that have bred together years ago. Coyotes and Wolves developed into two distinct species, but two species that can and DO produce fertile offspring. One can, through DNA analysis, estimate the amount of Wolf ancestry in your average Coyote population - which will show how prevalent these crossbreedings were (or are).

When you all come up with a pure bred Neanderthal remains, then just maybe you all can have credibility there were crossbreeds in the long ago past. Until then it is all pontification called 'scientific methodology'. Now I am NOT saying there was never ever crossbreeding that took place. Just that this notion of a Neanderthal is poppycock.

57 posted on 05/07/2010 1:06:14 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Frenchtown Dan

Napoleon Dynamite liked Ligers.


58 posted on 05/07/2010 1:06:37 PM PDT by gigster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Frenchtown Dan
Well combining Lions and Tigers in the modern age is most certainly “fool(ing) with Mother Nature”, but there is nothing unnatural about Wolves and Coyotes producing fertile offspring that re-merge with the Coyote population, resulting in Coyote populations that are around 5% or more of Wolf ancestry.

And I will assume you are joking about the feasibility of an insect and avian cross.

59 posted on 05/07/2010 1:07:24 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Well the experts in hominid fossils can all seem to independently agree on what features will make fossil remains of hominids in Europe from that time period either “homo sapiens” or “homo neanderthal”.

These criteria are real. There was a distinctly non human population of hominids that lived in Europe, and then disappeared some 30,000 years ago. DNA remains show that they were NOT human.

Lacking a cogent explanation from non scientific sources, I am obliged to adhere to the pontifications based upon real evidence that you dismissively call the scientific methodology.

60 posted on 05/07/2010 1:13:57 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson