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."
I will wait for peer review.
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.
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!
The snarky replies are usually attempts at feigned ignorance, to make the TOE seem absurd.
Crawled into a cave? And then into a well? Perhaps he kept digging.
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.
Yeah. And some of us more than others.
I was just thinking “beer goggles” are not a new invention.
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.
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.
BEST post....
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).
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.
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.
Napoleon Dynamite liked Ligers.
And I will assume you are joking about the feasibility of an insect and avian cross.
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.
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.