Confirmed: Non-Africans found to be part-Neanderthal

CBS News ^ | July 18, 2011 2:22 PM | CBS News

[wolfcreek]

We are ALL part-Neanderthal, now.

Here we go , here we go now.

[BroJoeK]

redgolum: "When I was a kid, the paintings of Neanderthals looked like ape men.
Now they look like my best friend back home."

"The research team, which was led by Damian Labuda of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Montreal and the CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center, suggests that the intermingling between humans and neanderthals likely took place in the Middle East.
While much still remains unclear about the Neanderthals, it's now clear that the two lived in close association, according to the researchers"

Seems that Neanderthals are looking better and better every day.
What if it turns out that our Neanderthal ancestors were actually the kinder & gentler "better half"?

[central_va]

One kind of weird thing about neanders is that the forearm is SHORTER than the upper arm. Freaky.

[chesley]

Right, I always thought Al Sharpton was a more obviously advanced species

More advanced than what? I had a pet snake with more brains and morals than the Rev Al.

[redgolum]

Lots of Germans, Slavs, and Swedes where I grew up. That picture looks like an old friend of mine’s father.

Including the beard.

There was an interesting article I read once out of Hungry, where the researcher remarked that no one claims Neanderthals are part of their DNA, but all claim they are part of everyone else’s.

Basically, the Neanderthals were a racial sub type. If they could breed in, they were not separate species. If they were, the children of such unions would more than likely be sterile.

[BroJoeK]

redgolum: "Basically, the Neanderthals were a racial sub type.
If they could breed in, they were not separate species.
If they were, the children of such unions would more than likely be sterile."

If there is a "debate" here, it may only be over definitions of words -- what, exactly, is a species, sub-species or 'racial sub-type'?

Consider that horses and cows cannot reproduce, period, so by any definition, they are separate species.
Horses and donkey's produce mules, which themselves cannot reproduce, and so again by definition, the parents are also separate species.
But now consider various "species" of, say, zebras (Plains, Mountain & Grevy's) which can produce viable offspring -- and yet they are still considered separate species.
So the question is, by what definition?

If different species can produce viable offspring together, then how are we even calling them "species"?

The same would hold true for pre-human species, of which the fossil record identifies nearly two dozen.
Were some of them biologically close enough to have produced viable offspring?
And if so, why are we still calling them separate species?

[redgolum]

Correct. If two groups can mate and make viable offspring, they are the same species (or that is the old way of viewing things).

Part of the reason we have some many species is it helps get your paper published.

[americanophile]

This explains the World’s Strongest Man competition.

[redgolum]

I read the link.

Interesting, but a bit of a stretch in places. The author makes connections with little or no evidence and then builds those connections other connections.

What is also funny is that Aspergers sounds like most engineers.

[blam]

"It would be nice if the article said what physical characteristics this gene was supposed to influence. I have heard of the “ginger gene” which was supposed to convey red hair and coloring. Was this a different one? "

I've read that these recently discovered (UNKNOWN) humans were more closely related to Neanderthals than we are.

[Candor7]

Count me in on the knuckle dragger list! LOL.