Posted on 11/09/2006 7:13:31 AM PST by indcons
Scientists have found new genetic evidence that they say may answer the longstanding question of whether modern humans and Neanderthals interbred when they co-existed thousands of years ago. The answer is: probably yes, though not often.
In research being published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists reported that matings between Neanderthals and modern humans presumably accounted for the presence of a variant of the gene that regulates brain size.
Bruce T. Lahn of the University of Chicago, the report’s senior author, said the findings demonstrated that such interbreeding with relative species, those on the brink of extinction, contributed to the evolutionary success of modern humans.
Other researchers in evolutionary biology said the new study offered strong support for the long-disputed idea that archaic species like Neanderthals contributed to the modern human gene pool.
Two other reports of DNA studies of possible mixing of human and related genes are expected to be published in the next few weeks.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Joe Girardi (right) famous MLB Neaderthal catcher!!!(humor, I love the guy)
Wolpoff and Caspari in their book, "Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction", go on to show that modern Aboriginal Austrailans can have larger brow ridges than some Neaderthals of 40,000 years ago...we are all modern Human beings.
Why do you guys keep posting this garbage? It's a known fact that neanderthals contributed nothing discernable to the genetic makeup of modern man and that neanderthal DNA is usually described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee". This is the thing which has ruled the neanderthal out as a plausible human ancestor; to be descended from something, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something, and we could no more interbreed with neanderthals than we could with baboons, or with goats or sheep for that matter. Humans and neanderthals lived in close proximity for protracted periods. There should have been a LOT of evidence of crossbreeding; the fact that there was ZERO such evidence was a big mystery until the DNA analyses came in.
Further, the fact that all other hominids are much further removed from us than the neanderthal basically rules out any sort of a theory of humans having evolved from anything else on this planet. There is no plausible evolutionary antecedant for modern man on this planet.
Scientists have found new genetic evidence that they say may answer the longstanding question of whether modern humans and Neanderthals interbred when they co-existed thousands of years ago.
Yes they just voted tuesday....and won Big.
A, can you name this species post.
Who's posting garbage?
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
I would argue that Gaz Coombes of the British pop combo Supergrass is strong evidence of an intermediary form.
For once, I completely agree with a New York Times headline.
Cavemen are just like everybody else, but need a makeover. "Queer Eye for the Cave Guy"
Or that not enough samples have been examined to draw a conclusion.
kind of interesting, but if we bred with Neanderthals, wouldn't
that have eventually brought the offspring to some type
of genetic midpoint, and not allowed any further major changes to
occur as long as the breeding continued to occur?
Is this information (if true) gonna bring back scientific
racism?...i.e. those whites have more Neanderthal DNA than
the blacks, or those yellows have 20% of Lucy's genome, or
those red have 15% of Homo Habilis?
Where is William Schockley and Arthur Jensen now?
Then there is that contaminated, evolutionary Neanderthal would laughs at the voters, because he's know for years that the vote counts a charade--a facade.
The dims were selected in Davos, Switzerland a few months ago.
After the "African Eve" fiasco, only the most commited PC doofuses would even suggest that theory might be valid.
Only a very limited intellect, after the confirmation of plate tectonics and rising sea levels over eons, would grasp hysterically at the African hypothesis.
For today's trivia question: Where were dinosaur bones first discoverd?
I agree. Give em a break....
"MLB Neanderthal catcher!" LOL Thank you. It's been a while since I had a good out-loud laugh!
The fossil record is the thing which shows no interbreeding. The DNA evidence provides the explanation.
No. not according to the author of the paper in this article nor to other luminaries as Wolpoff.
why dont you read these? You are not seeing the whole picture.
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.