View Full Version : You bunch of Neanderthals!
No, seriously. It appears large portion of the population carries 1-4% Neanderthal genes. :cool:
Science reporter, BBC News
Many people alive today possess some Neanderthal ancestry, according to a landmark scientific study.
The finding has surprised many experts, as previous genetic evidence suggested the Neanderthals made little or no contribution to our inheritance.
The result comes from analysis of the Neanderthal genome - the "instruction manual" describing how these ancient humans were put together.
Between 1% and 4% of the Eurasian human genome seems to come from Neanderthals.
But the study confirms living humans overwhelmingly trace their ancestry to a small population of Africans who later spread out across the world.
[Neanderthals] are not totally extinct, in some of us they live on - a little bit
Professor Svante Paabo
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
The most widely-accepted theory of modern human origins - known as Out of Africa - holds that the ancestors of living humans (Homo sapiens) originated in Africa some 200,000 years ago.
A relatively small group of people then left the continent to populate the rest of the world between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago.
While the Neanderthal genetic contribution - found in people from Europe, Asia and Oceania - appears to be small, this figure is higher than previous genetic analyses have suggested.
"They are not totally extinct. In some of us they live on, a little bit," said Professor Svante Paabo, from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.
Cont:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm
Yea it's not really surprising news at all. It's been suspected for several decades, but this current group of scientists finally was able to isolate Neanderthal DNA and make the evidence more concrete.
I heard this report on the radio the other day. I kind of figured that the Neanderthal chicks must have been like the fat chicks at a bar at 2 AM.
My wife could told you that. I admit that I am a knuckle-dragging troglodyte. I think the only thing I am missing is the thick frontal bone over the eyes and the unibrow.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-16-10, 11:39
Can't wait for the Black Supremacists to grab hold of this and make fun of our 'monkey' heritage.
I sometimes think the 1-4% is concentrated in 1-4% of the population.
I sometimes think the 1-4% is concentrated in 1-4% of the population.
Truth:eek:
Cagemonkey
05-16-10, 14:16
I watched a special about neanderthals. At the time of the special they couldn't conclusively prove their theories of neanderthal and modern human interbreeding. They say red hair is a neanderthal genetic trait. Recently I heard that natural red heads are becoming more rare.
SeriousStudent
05-16-10, 17:55
My wife could told you that. I admit that I am a knuckle-dragging troglodyte. I think the only thing I am missing is the thick frontal bone over the eyes and the unibrow.
I think he interviewed my ex. She was always accusing me of having skinless knuckles as well.
Grayling14
05-17-10, 04:41
I think that I will believe the word of God over that of a fallible man, even if that man has an advanced degree.
http://mb.humanists.ca/img/2008/Neanderthal_woman.jpg
my daddy always said to stay away from redheads. said they had a wild streak in em.
montanadave
05-17-10, 07:13
Given the possibility there may have been some interbreeding taking place between neanderthals and early homo sapiens, it suggests that our ancestral women were likely "so easy even a caveman can do 'em."
Like Homer Stokes said on Oh Brother Where Art Thou.......... and these smart a$$ people wanna say we came from monkeys. That's not my cultural and heritage .......... is that your cultural and heritage?
Interesting. I have often wondered how far back you would have to go back to reach a point in the evolution of man when we could no longer breed with other hominid species(using he broader term of course not the more narrow term).
Obviously we are to far divergent from the great apes now but going back the the common ancestors it is interesting to me when that divergence happened. The point of no return so to speak.
If I had to guess I would say modern man has a lot of DNA from various early Hominids from parallel branches of the Evolutionary tree that re-merged as the populations grew.
Like Homer Stokes said on Oh Brother Where Art Thou.......... and these smart a$$ people wanna say we came from monkeys. That's not my cultural and heritage .......... is that your cultural and heritage?
It is all our culture and heritage. Except we didn't come from monkeys. Monkeys and us just came from a common ancestor.
Well that explains the hairy knuckles and my behavior before my morning coffee. Now if I can only get the warden to buy into this :cool:
Given the possibility there may have been some interbreeding taking place between neanderthals and early homo sapiens, it suggests that our ancestral women were likely "so easy even a caveman can do 'em."
:D
I was assuming that it was our men doing the interbreeding with the Neanderthal women.But that would have ruined the joke huh.
I remember reading a story awhile back that they had found Neanderthal bones with our teeth marks on them...
It looks like they may have been a one-stop-shop for our ancestors.
I have been called a caveman more than once in my life, I guess there just might be some truth in it. :D
Landmark study? I thought wal-mart was everywhere.
I first heard of the theory of this in an anthropology class I took in 1992 or 1993. Neanderthals actually had larger brains than contemporary homo sapiens. The theory I recall is that homo sapiens simply out-bred neanderthals, but we evolved into a single, mostly homo sapiens species.
I think that I will believe the word of God over that of a fallible man, even if that man has an advanced degree.
You do understand that the "word of God" was written by fallible men with no degrees right?
You do understand that the "word of God" was written by fallible men with no degrees right?
Under divine inspiration.
Those degrees will not soothe the torment.
You do understand that the "word of God" was written by fallible men with no degrees right?
HERETIC!!! Ya know some folks would burn you at the stake for saying that. ;)
Under divine inspiration.
Those degrees will not soothe the torment.
And you understand that anyone claiming to do such acts today would end up in the loony bin.
And you understand that anyone claiming to do such acts today would end up in the loony bin.
they usually did back then, too.
And you understand that anyone claiming to do such acts today would end up in the loony bin.
And some in science, know the difference:
"We seem to be engaged in contentious, destructive, and wholly
unnecessary debate about evolution and creation. From my perspective as a scientist working on the genome, the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming . . . Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory." - Francis Collins, top geneticist and born again Christian
HERETIC!!! Ya know some folks would burn you at the stake for saying that. ;)
I have the word Heretic tattooed on my arm. I'm surprised it took this long for this thread to go this route.
Is god typing on this forum? Or are there people on here that are assuming that they have the right to speak for him/her? Isn't speaking for god heretical as well? I also heard in this book that judging others was against the tenants as well... Maybe I read a different book though.
Under divine inspiration.
Those degrees will not soothe the torment.
Well that is the claim of fallible men with no degrees. If you wish to put your faith in such things that is fine, I'd rather stick to what we can prove and observe.
I'd rather stick to what we can prove and observe.
You forgot something. Not only is it stuff we can prove, through observation, but also stuff we can disprove, and revise.
There were no Neanderthals, only Man! You will only see Man walking among the Dinosaurs at the Creation Museum.
http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/photo-preview/?utm_source=creation-museum-creation-evolution&utm_medium=Banner&utm_campaign=museum-virtual-tour
Dustin
Sometimes I cant' tell if people are being serious or snarky.
my daddy always said to stay away from redheads. said they had a wild streak in em.
After being engaged to a red head I will agree. Red heads are either REALLY hot, or REALLY ugly. I was fortunate enough to have a really hot one, but thats about the only good thing about her. The wild side comment is far from the truth. Its more like a wild caged beast that will kill you if you look the other way. But man was she good in bed..... and we were each others firsts haha
Grayling14
05-18-10, 20:35
We probably shouldn't go this direction. The 'Glenn Beck/NRA' thread took this turn, moved to an 'Evolution vs. Creation' thread, and was then closed by the Mods to preempt potential hostilities.
Posted my comment before being aware of the above.
QuickStrike
05-19-10, 05:22
Very interesting. I wonder how the homos really interacted.
How'd we come out on top when we are on average; less sturdily/strong built and had a smaller brain? :confused:
Very interesting. I wonder how the homos really interacted.
How'd we come out on top when we are on average; less sturdily/strong built and had a smaller brain? :confused:
Probably prodigious breeding.
i'd guess adaptability. everything i've read says the were pretty slow to adapt, while modern Man is one of the most adaptable mammals on the planet. we's smawt.
i'd guess adaptability. everything i've read says the were pretty slow to adapt, while modern Man is one of the most adaptable mammals on the planet. we's smawt.
Isn't it so easy a caveman can do it?!? Or maybe I just saw that somewhere!
"adaptability: so easy a.... oh, hmm."
kaiservontexas
05-19-10, 13:20
Oh God now I am gonna have to put up with this crap regarding my hair. By the way red hair was not predominate with them. It is only some that had the color, just like everything else today.
As for the we are going extinct, red heads, that was a bs ad campaign set up by protector and gamble to sell red hair dye.
It is funny I was reading this stuff last night. And then see this today.
I'm surprised a theory like this could come out, given all the political correctness surrounding Darwinism.
I'm still curious as to why we have different races, and this is one step to figuring this out. Reminds me of the Norse "Creation of Man" myth.
During the eternal war with the Giants, Odin seeks a new ally. He sends Heimdall, the White God (perhaps Baldr, perhaps not), down to Midgard, to create a being of strength, beauty, and intelligence. Heimdall's first creation is called Trell (modern day "thrall", meaning surf), and he is dark, ugly, and stupid. Heimdall ignores him, and tries again. His new creation is much better - tall, handsome, strong of both mind and body, with hair of mahogany and green eyes, he is called Karl ("modern" day Churl, or the "karl" or "Huskarl" - free man, landowner, etc.). Still, Heimdall is not satisfied with his creation, though he cares deeply for Karl. Finally, Heimdall creates Jarl (modern day "Earl", the son of a Duke, nephew of a monarch), who is fair of skin, blonde, blue eyed, and so on. He has the appropriate intelligence, strength, and intrinsic virtue, that Heimdall is satisfied, and Odin, too is satisfied. At this time, Odin decides that he will allow Heimdall (Prometheus) to pass on the Gods' knowledge of the Runes (fire), but only to Jarl and Jarl's kin.
One of the African creation myths is essentially the same, except with the first two being destroyed, one by a flood, the other by a fire.
Maybe there is a third? I figure these have to have some truth to them. If there wasn't a third, there would be no reason for the ancients to need to explain it.
QuickStrike
05-19-10, 14:28
"adaptability: so easy a....uuuh, hmm.... deerrr..... GROG SMASH!!11"
hehe :D
I'm surprised a theory like this could come out, given all the political correctness surrounding Darwinism.
Darwin has been revised many, many times as our understanding of things improves. Science is like that.
I'm still curious as to why we have different races, and this is one step to figuring this out. Reminds me of the Norse "Creation of Man" myth.
If you honestly don't know why we have different races, you really aren't trying to find the answer. That is pretty easy. Life is subject to environment and it is no surprise that life developed closer to the equator has acquired a genetic tan.
Darwin has been revised many, many times as our understanding of things improves. Science is like that. I mean the general idea. To be honest, I do not follow scientific research. Many major revisions?
If you honestly don't know why we have different races, you really aren't trying to find the answer. That is pretty easy. Life is subject to environment and it is no surprise that life developed closer to the equator has acquired a genetic tan. Well not just skin color, but other physical/mental/genetic differences.
For example: Where did Asians come from? Why are they usually so small, and why are they generally smarter on average than the other races?
I mean the general idea. To be honest, I do not follow scientific research. Many major revisions?
Well not just skin color, but other physical/mental/genetic differences.
For example: Where did Asians come from? Why are they usually so small, and why are they generally smarter on average than the other races?
Evolution controls more than just skin color. The various traits we see are based on local eviromental factors. Given enough time the various races probably would have evolved to the point where they could no longer interbreed. However as it stands there is little real difference. It isn't even really accurate to call them different races.
I mean the general idea. To be honest, I do not follow scientific research. Many major revisions?
Of course. When first discovered we knew very little and based all of our proposals on that limited knowledge base. Among other things we are learning that species variation isn't simply random successful mutations but are actually driven by the environment itself.
Well not just skin color, but other physical/mental/genetic differences.
For example: Where did Asians come from? Why are they usually so small, and why are they generally smarter on average than the other races?
And like skin color most of the traits we refer to as "race" are also the result of environment. Size is usually a matter of diet and in a single generation we saw Western Europeans become larger than Eastern Europeans after the communist divide. Imagine what generations of that influence can do.
Intelligence is probably more of a cultural thing than genetic (although you could argue that culture is an environmental influence). Cultures that require running and endurance to be successful hunters and evade predators will likely be more physical than cultures who rely on engineering and crop production for food and shelter. The latter culture will be considered more "intelligent" because their survival favors those with this preferred capacity.
And among other things we are learning that classification by "race" is almost an artificial classification. It really isn't the same as differences between species obviously, the difference in DNA is actually very minor among various races of humans. The differences we observe are the physical results of environmental demands over time and cultural differences in personal values.
wild_wild_wes
05-19-10, 22:20
i'd guess adaptability. everything i've read says the were pretty slow to adapt, while modern Man is one of the most adaptable mammals on the planet. we's smawt.
Actually, from what I've read, it was prolly the Homo sapiens sapiens/Neanderthal crossbreeding that led to a giant leap forward in intelligence in their offspring, based on the sudden developments shown in cultural artifacts c.30,000 years ago.
Also: Africans show no instances of having any Neanderthal genes at all.
Also: Africans show no instances of having any Neanderthal genes at all.
That is because when the species arose they were smart enough to know Africa sucks and not to go there.
:D
That is because when the species arose they were smart enough to know Africa sucks and not to go there.
:D
I was waiting for that...:( Both came out of Africa originally. So the better statement would be "smart enough to move out of Africa".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.