Cro-Magnon 28,000 Years Old Had DNA Like Modern Humans

Science Daily ^ | July 16, 2008

[Soliton]

Some 40,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons -- the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern -- entered Europe, coming from Africa. A group of geneticists, coordinated by Guido Barbujani and David Caramelli of the Universities of Ferrara and Florence, shows that a Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as anatomically.

[valkyry1]

Are you suggesting that DNA molecules are not altered by the compounds used in bio-chemical process of extraction?

[allmendream]

After looking around I find lots of sources that say that a comparison of genetic DNA between a mouse and human is somewhere between 75 and 85%. I haven't seen anywhere but the “New Scientist” you sourced saying a 97% similarity and I find it strange that a different journalist citing the identical paper said 85%.

I do not have anywhere near a photographic memory so I look things up constantly, but I am also not a novice when it comes to the whole DNA thing. I am a Scientist. I work with rodents all the time, the thinking being that if a drug targets a protein made by a mouse gene, it is at least 85% likely to target the same human gene in the same way.

It is difficult to sometimes know exactly what is being used as a measure of comparison because the more critical something is the more likely it is to be conserved between lineages.

Here is a hierarchy of conservation from the most conserved to sequences that change at the neutral mutation rate (from memory...uh oh!).

1) the active domain of a protein. Highly conserved. What changes there are between diverse lineages are usually conservative substitutions of similar amino acids that do not change the function/shape of the active domain.

2) conserved regions of a protein. Less conserved than the actual active domain, but once again function specifies that only some changes are “allowed”.

3) Protein sequence. The DNA code is redundant, so many changes (especially in the third codon) in DNA will not change the actual sequence of amino acids that make up the protein.

4) Regulatory domains of DNA. These short sequences need to be bound by a protein that recognizes their specific sequence in order to turn on or turn off a gene.

5) Genetic DNA. Conserved in similar species due to changes most likely being detrimental or neutral to selection.

6) Pseudogenes/ERV sequences/repeat DNA. This DNA is not conserved between lineages except those that are closely related. Changes in this DNA are neutral to selection because the DNA doesn't make a product, doesn't bind a protein, or otherwise have a function.

[allmendream]

Altered in what way? It was DNA in the cell and has the same molecular structure when it is sequenced. Sequencers are not 100% accurate (due to the intrinsic error rate in DNA polymerase), that is why the same passage is read more than once so any errors stand out against the background of the consensus sequence.

So no. The molecular structure of DNA is not changed when DNA is extracted. It organizes into A-T G=C base pairs in the cell with a phosphate sugar backbone, and it is the same after extraction.

[autumnraine]

I do not have anywhere near a photographic memory so I look things up constantly, but I am also not a novice when it comes to the whole DNA thing. I am a Scientist. I work with rodents all the time, the thinking being that if a drug targets a protein made by a mouse gene, it is at least 85% likely to target the same human gene in the same way.>>>

Oh, hey, you are way more qualified than me in this subject. Apparently the science center used New Science as their source, which now makes me question everything I learned there. Either way, I just it was such an amazing thing to me, it stood out. I’m thinking “97%?? Really?” And then I remember thinking, “I guess that’s why we use mice for experiments” so it sort of made sense. Although odd.

Please let me know if you find something else, I’d be interested to know.

Nice to meet you, by the way!

[allmendream]

Nice to meet you as well.

I don't doubt at all that where the “rubber meets the road” the actual protein sequences of the genes we have in common are probably at least 97% similar in their highly conserved functional domains. But over the entire genome mice are only around 40% the same. And most references I can find show about 75 to 85% difference between mice and humans in genetic DNA.

This is as one would expect because as much as we like to think highly of ourselves, we undergo the same molecular functions as a mouse to a T.

We lactate to feed our young, metabolize meat and plants to make energy, use that energy to make lipids, nucleic acids and amino acids, form a placenta to feed our young in utero, see hear and smell utilizing the same organs, have red blood cells and immune cells that circulate by means of a beating heart, grow hair, heal wounds, clot blood, etc, etc. The difference between us and a mouse in our mental capacity is not one of kind, but of quantity; just as the chip in a pocket calculator isn't much less complex than the chips in our super fast 3-D graphics using computers.

[valkyry1]

I suspect that it will be found that the agents (solvents, detergents, enzymes, heating) used in the DNA extraction process’s have also acted upon the DNA molecules also.

Information was removed or erroneous information added.

[valkyry1]

//The difference between us and a mouse in our mental capacity is not one of kind, but of quantity//

Would you like to expound that erroneous conclusion with citations?

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks Fractal Trader (ping) and LucyT (link). The Neandertal Enigma by James Shreeve Frayer's own reading of the record reveals a number of overlooked traits that clearly and specifically link the Neandertals to the Cro-Magnons. One such trait is the shape of the opening of the nerve canal in the lower jaw, a spot where dentists often give a pain-blocking injection. In many Neandertal, the upper portion of the opening is covered by a broad bony ridge, a curious feature also carried by a significant number of Cro-Magnons. But none of the alleged 'ancestors of us all' fossils from Africa have it, and it is extremely rare in modern people outside Europe." [pp 126-127] To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[allmendream]

Information? The molecular structure is the same before and after. If you are suggesting the sequence or “information” if you rather is changed how is it that the same change happens every time?

How is it that a DNA sequence that according to the Universal code should make a specific Amino Acid sequence will, when introduced to a cell free system, make that exact amino acid sequence that it was presumed to make in the cell? When the protein is sequenced either from DNA inside the cell or DNA synthesized outside the cell and introduced into a cell free system one derives the same sequence.

It seems you really have no conception of just how much is known about the cell, and as i presumed just wish to muddy the waters with...ITS DIFFERENT I TELL YOU! I don’t know how or why! BUT IT’S GOT TO BE DIFFERENT. because I say so.

Rather weak sauce.

[allmendream]

A mouse brain neuron is much the same as a human brain neuron, just as a chip from a calculator is much like a chip from a computer.

The difference is in how they are arranged, and the size and number of interactions; not a difference of kind but of quantity and quality.

What about a human brain do you think is actually a difference in kind rather than it being the same stuff just more of it and arranged in a more complex pattern?

[norton]

"When the scientists used to pronounce it like it looks (KRO-MAG-NON) then I thought cro-magnons were cool.
But now the scientists pronounce it like KRO-MAN-YON which is kinda gay.
So if I had lived back then, I would have preferred to have been a Neanderthal ... even though those goofy scientists call them Neander-TALLS."

I know there is a really great comeback/carry forward response to that but I still haven't come up with it.

I hate it when that happens!

[norton]

"What else explains the fact that if a human and gorilla but not oragutang share an ERV it will most certainly be in a chimp, and be less diverged from the original viral sequence than one shared between all primates and less diverged from the original viral sequence than an ERV only in humans?"

WHAT?

Is that like "Mary and John have seven apples, but not Lucille, who has the basket, a nasty rash, and looks like she might be John's sister if John's sister had red hair and spoke Cockney"...?

[allmendream]

OK. Here it is again slowly.

Retrovirus insert their sequence into their host cells to try to reproduce and the host cell responds by methylating the DNA and shutting down the virus.

We can see the presence of ancient retro-viral infections thousands of places in our genome from many thousands of generations ago, we call them ERV’s for Endogenous retro-viral insertions. We recognize them as retrovirus because among other typical retro-viral sequences they have the code for the protein reverse transcriptase.

Some are so mutated from a functioning reverse transcriptase gene that they are barely recognizable and these are thought to be from very old retro-viral infections.

Others are not so mutated and they are thought to be from more recent retro-viral infections.

One can estimate the mutation rate and get an estimate of how long the retrovirus has been riding around in the human genome.

Those ERV’s that look some 20 million years old seem to be found in humans, chimps and gorillas; as if all three species have had that sequence in their genome from a retro-viral infection some 20 million years ago in our common ancestor. Those that look like they are from some 10 million years ago are only found in humans and chimps and not in gorillas, and it is thought to be because 10 million years ago gorillas had diverged from the line that gave rise to chimps and humans. Those that look the most recent might only be found in some human populations and not others.

So how can one explain the fact that if both a human and gorilla (but not an orang) share an ERV it will most certainly be in chimps? Why would this ERV sequence be less mutated than an ERV sequence found in all primates? Why would an ERV sequence only found in humans be less mutated than one found in all primates?

It is easy to explain by common descent. Nobody has proposed another explanation. Can you come up with one?

[wolfcreek]

“Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as anatomically.”

I hear that Mediterranean diet does wonders.

[norton]

OK, and thanks.

I can easily enough explain a family tree & presume that, if the signs are accurately interpreted, Orangutans stepped away from ours fairly early.
However, as one of the great mass of humanity that uses "Endogenous retro-viral insertions" very rarely in day to day conversation, the statement/question was a bit vague.

[colorado tanker]

Be an optimist. This means there’s a chance 28,000 years ago an Italian babe could look like Sofia Loren. ‘Course, she wouldn’t have any modern clothes to wear. Dang.

[allmendream]

There are thousands of signs in our DNA that provide the evidence of our lineage with other primates, ERV’s or Endogenous retroviral insertions, are just one of many but one of the most compelling.

All of the great apes share the same disabling mutation at the same location in the gene that makes the enzyme that makes Vitamin C.

Human chromosomal banding looks just like a chimpanzees except that one of our chromosomes looks like you shoved two of their chromosomes together, and when you look at the junction there are sequences associated with the ends of chromosomes (called telomerees) in the middle of the ‘fused’ chromosome, as well as a nonfunctional ‘centromere’ (the part where chromosomes are pulled by when undergoing cell division) right where the chimp had a functioning one.

Then we can move on to gene homology and the pattern of similarity and divergence in non functional DNA that forms nested hierarchies of interrelatedness.

[SunkenCiv]

:’)

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The difference between us and a mouse in our mental capacity is not one of kind, but of quantity

Indeed, mice design cathedrals, ponder Euclid's parallel axiom, and play a good Ruy Lopez too, it's just that they do less of it than we do.

[allmendream]

Once again you try to selectively quote me, it grows tiresome. My entire quote was an analogy about a computer chip in a calculator and one in a computer to a mouse and human brain; both are made of the same stuff. Try to run a high speed 3-D graphics program on a pocket calculator.