Non-Africans Definitely Are Part Neanderthal, Genetic Research Now Confirms

Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Non-Africans Definitely Are Part Neanderthal, Genetic Research Now Confirms

 

 

enlarge
Human chromosomes. (Credit: Jane Ades, NHGRI)

ScienceDaily (July 17, 2011) — Some of the human X chromosome originates from Neanderthals and is found exclusively in people outside Africa, according to an international team of researchers led by Damian Labuda of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Montreal and the CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center. The research was published in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution.

 

"This confirms recent findings suggesting that the two populations interbred," says Dr. Labuda. His team places the timing of such intimate contacts and/or family ties early on, probably at the crossroads of the Middle East.

Neanderthals, whose ancestors left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago, evolved in what is now mainly France, Spain, Germany and Russia, and are thought to have lived until about 30,000 years ago. Meanwhile, early modern humans left Africa about 80,000 to 50,000 years ago. The question on everyone's mind has always been whether the physically stronger Neanderthals, who possessed the gene for language and may have played the flute, were a separate species or could have interbred with modern humans. The answer is yes, the two lived in close association.

"In addition, because our methods were totally independent of Neanderthal material, we can also conclude that previous results were not influenced by contaminating artifacts," adds Dr. Labuda.

Dr. Labuda and his team almost a decade ago had identified a piece of DNA (called a haplotype) in the human X chromosome that seemed different and whose origins they questioned. When the Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010, they quickly compared 6000 chromosomes from all parts of the world to the Neanderthal haplotype. The Neanderthal sequence was present in peoples across all continents, except for sub-Saharan Africa, and including Australia.

"There is little doubt that this haplotype is present because of mating with our ancestors and Neanderthals. This is a very nice result, and further analysis may help determine more details," says Dr. Nick Patterson, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University, a major researcher in human ancestry who was not involved in this study.

"Dr. Labuda and his colleagues were the first to identify a genetic variation in non-Africans that was likely to have come from an archaic population. This was done entirely without the Neanderthal genome sequence, but in light of the Neanderthal sequence, it is now clear that they were absolutely right!" adds Dr. David Reich, a Harvard Medical School geneticist, one of the principal researchers in the Neanderthal genome project.

So, speculates Dr. Labuda, did these exchanges contribute to our success across the world? "Variability is very important for long-term survival of a species," says Dr. Labuda. "Every addition to the genome can be enriching." An interesting match, indeed.

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110718085329.htm| More   

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This finding

 

 

also confirms something I've long wondered about French rugby players....chuckles...I wonder what other minority populations will be found mixed into us. Plenty you'd think.

If this happened recently between related hominids it would have happened in the past, too...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
I had an ex

I had an ex that told me on several occasions that I sometimes behaved like a caveman. She may have been closer to the truth than she realized.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
How did they sequence N's genome?

 

Quote:

Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010

Isn't soft tissue required to sequence the genome? How could it survive 30k years?

Wasn't this suspect tissue or am I confusing it with some dino soft tissue?

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Researchers spliced together pieces from bone

ex-minister wrote:

 

Quote:

Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010

Isn't soft tissue required to sequence the genome? How could it survive 30k years?

Wasn't this suspect tissue or am I confusing it with some dino soft tissue?

 

 

 

 

Try this link instead....

 

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

 

Or this - comes with image of french second rower in unlikely pose...

 

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/28/132243863/2010-a-good-year-for-neanderthals-and-dna

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

 

Quote:

Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010

Isn't soft tissue required to sequence the genome? How could it survive 30k years?

Wasn't this suspect tissue or am I confusing it with some dino soft tissue?

 

 

Undamaged bone can contain marrow.  Although not intact, if the fragments of the DNA are long enough and the sample is of sufficient volume, the researchers can Pull many samples and see if they can get the fragments to line up.  From there, they would be able to tell what a whole genome would be if it had survived intact.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
So what does this mean with

So what does this mean with regards to racism and racial supremacy?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Funny you should ask

 

I was going to bring this up but thought I'd leave it alone. But yeah. Apparently your typical european is not entirely homo sapien sapiens...

I thought I read somewhere recently there was some homo erectus DNA in populations elsewhere in the world. P'raps I'm wrong about that. 

Personally, don't think it makes any real difference but it's curious all the same. 

The erectus genetic contribution would have originated in Asia and be in the female mtDNA. Not proven but I think it's probable. There's evidence homo erectus lived in 

Indonesia (Flores) as near as 14,000 years ago...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
My thought is that it'll

My thought is that it'll either strengthen discrimination towards Africans, or strengthen African pride as they're the only pure humans.

 

But then, I must ask...what of North Africans? Or East Africans?  You'd think with the access they have to Europe and Asia, and the contact that they'd have with those regions, they'd have some significant mixing going on...


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Funny that Earth's Children

Funny that Earth's Children series may actually be more scientifically accurate than I first thought.   Incidentally, the last book is out... I just wish I had enough time to read fiction.  I have read the series up to the last one, and this promises to be conclusion.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Naw

BenfromCanada wrote:

My thought is that it'll either strengthen discrimination towards Africans, or strengthen African pride as they're the only pure humans.

 

But then, I must ask...what of North Africans? Or East Africans?  You'd think with the access they have to Europe and Asia, and the contact that they'd have with those regions, they'd have some significant mixing going on...

 

Neander valley people are african too, they just went hiking half a million years earlier. But yeah - it's interesting to think we're a blend of old populations as well as new ones.  

Incidentally the neander genes are between 4-9 per cent so we're all still majority Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote:So what

BenfromCanada wrote:

So what does this mean with regards to racism and racial supremacy?

Well, scientifically, very little. Pseudo-scientifically, on the other hand....

Scientifically, there's still no reason to consider the concept of 'race' as biologically meaningful within the current human population. The argument against it is that there is far too much genetic variation within populations compared to the genetic variation between populations.

What that means is that if you take groups separately, you'll measure a large amount of variation between individuals. But if you mix those populations together, you'll measure largely the same amount of variation within the overall population as a whole.

In other words, there are no significantly large sets of distinct genetic characteristics that flag a particular population of humans as being so different from each other that it's worth calling us distinct genetic races.

Even this neanderthal bit won't change that overall picture, because we humans interbreed so readily. The article says that people with certain ancestry will or won't have the neanderthal genes. But our ancestries are so mixed around anyway that you'll find people who look 'African' who nevertheless have some non-African ancestors, and thus may have neanderthal genes.

It doesn't say "No one currently living in Africa has the neanderthal genes, and everyone outside of Africa does." Instead, it talks about the ancestry of people.

Some people have hairy arms. Some people are double-jointed. Some people have neanderthal genes. There's no such thing as a 'race' of hairy armed people or a 'race' of double-jointed people. Same with neanderthal genes. Yes, it's a difference between people. People have differences. Wow. That doesn't justify 'race' as a concept.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!