Posted on 03/30/2013 4:48:56 AM PDT by Renfield
The skeletal remains of an individual living in northern Italy 40,000-30,000 years ago are believed to be that of a human/Neanderthal hybrid, according to a paper in PLoS ONE.
If further analysis proves the theory correct, the remains belonged to the first known such hybrid, providing direct evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred. Prior genetic research determined the DNA of people with European and Asian ancestry is 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal.
The present study focuses on the individual’s jaw, which was unearthed at a rock-shelter called Riparo di Mezzena in the Monti Lessini region of Italy. Both Neanderthals and modern humans inhabited Europe at the time.
“From the morphology of the lower jaw, the face of the Mezzena individual would have looked somehow intermediate between classic Neanderthals, who had a rather receding lower jaw (no chin), and the modern humans, who present a projecting lower jaw with a strongly developed chin,” co-author Silvana Condemi, an anthropologist, told Discovery News....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.discovery.com ...
Exactly.... the most sucessful civilizations have evolved from those of mixed genetic heritage.
Fertility
The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane’s rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y).
According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an ‘Island’ tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[10]
In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a “liliger”, which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[11]
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This only indicates the production of what I would call a third generation offspring, there have been isolated reports of a third generation mule but so far as I know there have been no reports of a fourth or fifth and so on. A third generation means nothing unless the third and succeeding generations are themselves fertile. Do you have any evidence of that? So far I am still convinced that true hybrids of mammals are sterile.
Coyote are not are not wolves are not Shelties are not Beagles. And the genetic differences are a result of genetic reduction, ie Shelties lack the genes to breed Beagle-like (morphologically) offspring but they are all the same ‘species’ genetically. Taxonomy is not an exact science.
Reality doesn’ t always conform to the nice neat boxes that people want to segregate them into, but even the most extreme lumper taxonomist doesn’t classify wolves and coyotes as the same species. Inability to easily reproduce together is a possible effect of a long reproductive separation. It is not what defines species.
Given time and effort, one could THEORETICALLY start with a pair of wolves and produce “Beagles” but the reverse is not true, as the genes for Wolf morphology have been bred out of the Beagle population.
Definition of “species” via the discipline of taxonomy was not my point. My original point is that Neanderthals were Homo sapiens genetically, and could readily inter-breed with Homo sapiens sapiens today ... given enough money.
My point comes from a genetics perspective: we and Neanderthals share the same genes/chromosome pairs. (unlike chimps and humans for example). Our gametes are compatible, if not our morphology ;-)
I have no use for Vendrtamini's thesis about predation from Neanderthals driving gracile hominids to punc-eek their way to Cro-Magnonhood, but his (Vendramini's) reconstructions of Neanderthals are totally believable. All early reconstructions such as Pierre Boule's were entirely similar to Vendramini's and this is a case where the scholars of 1900 goty it right and the yuppies of 2013 are getting it wrong. .
Given enough time and effort one could get a wolf like dog from a beagle. None of the changes in DNA are irreversible. And Neanderthal were Homo Neanderthal not Homo Sapien. They were a distinct and separate population.
The continuation of the article points out that the find had mitochondrial DNA from a Neanderthal. Thus the female parent was Neanderthal and the male Homo Sapien. The possibility of rape is mentioned.
You and i are just going to have to disagree.
If a population is homozygous for a gene or series of genes it cannot produce the absent trait. Ie blue eyed parents cannot have brown eyed offspring.
The reduction in the variation of the Canis genome that yields ‘Beagles ‘ means that Beagles’ lineage cannot be bred to make wolves (morphology ) because those genes are not in the Beagles’ chromosomes.
Sans ‘magic’ mutations in the genome of course.
Taxonomy is a human construct not a genetic one.
On mobile pardon any errors.
Mutations don’t need to be magic. The gene for floppy ears is not in the wolf population. It is a mutation that was selected for by dog breeders. A throwback mutation of that gene would give you a beagle with upright ears. If that was selected for, rather than against, you would have beagles with upright ears. Wolves don’t have genes for short stubby legs in their population.... etc, etc.
I think the point that Blueflag is making is that the genes that would produce wolf like characteristics have been bred out of the beagle line.
The wolf contains ALL the genes required to make a beagle. But the beagle does NOT contain all the genes to make a wolf.
And that point is absolutely WRONG! There are no genes for short stubby legs in the wolf population. It is not a matter of selecting from among genetic variations that are already present in wolves, it is a matter of finding and selecting for any desired variation that arises over thousands of years of dog breeding.
Thank you John O. Yes.
Like i posted before. We will have to disagree.
The morphology of the first wolf population domesticated by humans was for a WOLF morphology - not a giant Great Dane or a yappy terrier, no down ears, no webbed feet, no short stubby legs, no pushed in muzzles, etc, etc.
The combined genetic variation in all dog breeds is MUCH LARGER than the genetic variations in wolves - let alone that small population of wolves that humans domesticated.
One does not get webbed feet in Labradors by mixing the right combination of wolf DNA already present in wolf populations - one must await a spontaneous mutation (they are not that uncommon) for webbed feet and breed for that trait.
Not gonna even try to engage a discussion on codons, alleles and tripled or neutral vs deleterious mutation arguments.
There is/are a lot of non-coding or seemingly non-coding components of DNA that can express in morphology or physiology - or not- for good, bad or no known effect.
And for what it’s worth trying to get those words into a post with auto spell on is nearly impossible.
I acknowledge that mutations occur in a population, but to suggest that differences in Canis (species) morphology are preponderance due to serial mutation, and thus speciation is a place i can’t go in science.
Forgive any errors. Android auto spell killing me.
Is it your position that yappy terrier have a different gene sequence than labradors?
Obviously and empirically.
I never would have guessed that Henry Waxman was related to General Tojo.
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.