Free Science Journal Articles on Neanderthal genome!

[McTaggStar]

I'm also really surprised you had anthropology students be rude to you like that. Typically there's a recognition among biological anthropologists that there needs to be discussion with pure biologists. Bio-anthro departments at schools like Duke and Harvard are getting it right by putting their students through rigorous courses in genetics, anatomy and physiology, and so on, but there's still a lot of headway to be made.

[McTaggStar]

It's true that anthropology programs generally aren't as rigorous in the hard sciences, and recently some programs have been developed leading to B.Sc degrees in anthropology and archaeological sciences. My program is an honours B.A., and I do quite a bit of extra-curricular biology reading to bring myself up to speed. No disrespect taken. They need to draw more on pure biology than they currently are.

[Encephalitisify]

Scientifically, no one is recognizing the elephant in the room. Either you are mixed or not.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

It's always refreshing to hear a professional opinion XD

[BobBilling]

Haha good ending



[memonk11]

I think this all begs to ask: What is a "modern" human? And does it really matter? When I took zoology, it really was nomenclature to understand evolutionary lineage. It didn't really matter what classifications were applied. So these days I'm not so much interested in names, "modern", "Neanderthal" etc... just the evolutionary understanding.

[Friendough]

Ah, sweet vindication.

[Mdebacle]

As of Jul 18, 2011 it was published that Eurasian X-chromosome matches Neanderthal. This is not consistent with Eurasians being "4 percent" Neanderthal.

A mixture of 24 African X-chromosomes for every 1 NM X-chromosome would result in a population where only 1 female in 625 would have 2 NM X-chromosomes.

NM X-chromosome matched Eurasian because NM recevied it from Eurasians.

[LithodidMan]

@Mdebacle I am not sure of your point here (please clarify if not too much trouble). I assume you are referring to the Yatova et. al paper which suggests that up to 9% of the X chromosome of Eurasians are directly Neanderthal derived. This suggests more admixture than previously reported.

Genetics is not my field, so please let me know if I am missing some critical point. I appreciate correction!

[Mdebacle]

@LithodidMan

The Hardy-Weinberg formula for "admixture" is p squared +2pq + q squared.

If q is 9 percent, the frequency of NM genes in both X chromosomes would be .0081. The odds against elimination of African genes would be astronomical.

Also they tell us NM was 12.7 percent "ancestral" meaning it was 1-16th ape. This would have given it 2 million ape-like base pairs. If SOME Eurasians had just a 1000 of those, your point would be proven.

[LithodidMan]

@Mdebacle "The Hardy-Weinberg formula for "admixture" is p squared +2pq + q squared" Ah, I see. I suspect I am being trolled here. The HR formula is for the frequency of particular alleles and assumes random mating and no selection. It has nothing to do with the Neander data in either paper (Yatova et. al or the Green et. al paper).

"Also they tell us NM was 12.7 percent "ancestral" meaning it was 1-16th ape" I am not even sure what this means. (cont'd)

[LithodidMan]

(cont'd) The only mention of "12.7%" in the Green et. al paper was "... as a fraction of the lineage from the human reference genome to the common ancestor of Neandertals, humans, and chimpanzees. For autosomes, this was 12.7% for each of the three bones analyzed" Not sure where this implies 1/16th ape or any such thing.

Either you are not reading or not understanding the papers you are mentioning. Or, as I suspect, you are trolling me.

[Mdebacle]

@LithodidMan

If you like the way John Hawks puts it, "of those positions where the human genome differs from chimpanzees, Neandertals have the chimpanzee version around 12.7 percent of the time." What these guys won't say is that NM was 2 million base pairs closer to an ape. Whatever was 4 percent NM would have had 80000 ape base pairs more than humans.

We can calculate NM had 3 ape chromosomes. If "admixture" defines the hybrid, Neanderthal was it.

[lopytube]

@Mdebacle

Damn.You know your stuff.

Even if someone was to say your inaccurate.

You definitely aware of your field(I assume)

[Mdebacle]

@lopytube

[aware of my field]

I just sit back and let them bring up evidence like room service on a silver platter.

Per wikipedia article 'chimpanzee genome', notorius human chromosome 2 has distinctive human genes PGML/FOXD/CBWD 150,000 base pairs not found in apes.

My question to NM researchers whether NM had these genes is met with dead silence. When and if they come out of the closet realizing NM was the hybrid, we will enter a new paradigm.

[LithodidMan]

@Mdebacle Again, I suspect you are trolling, but I'll bite. Chimpanzees have PGML, FOXD, and CBWD genes, just not the distal ends of their 2a & 2b chromosomes. Why would you think chimpanzees lack these genes? For example, CBWD is found in all Euarchontoglires (rodents, primates, etc), and probably most mammals. For fun, why don't you pick one of the genes you mention, download its sequence, then look for yourself from the NM genomic sequence. It's not hard to do, and the resources are free.

[Mdebacle]

@LithodidMan

That NM had the ape-like sequence , no doubt. The salient point is "a copy of these genes may have been added ...prior to the fusion event." i.e. our first ancestors with 46 were distinctly human.

Now the question becomes did NM have human chromosome 2 ?

The only response I have is from Hughes Institute: "The neanderthal DNA is not intact and the complete genome is not yet available. "

My bet is that NM chromosome 2 is human, at least at those 3 genes. What say you ?

[lopytube]

@Mdebacle

careful my amigo(I know,me neither lol)

Wiki likes to change text with the seasons.

Always purporting something also

[LithodidMan]

@lopytube Nothing I have seen shows that Mdebacle knows anything of the field of genetics, evolution, or anthropology. Citing sources like "The Economist" and Wiki, and then getting them wrong is not a sign of knowing your stuff.

[lopytube]

@LithodidMan yeah that pesky Wiki thing. I gotta look up the etytomology of that word again. It ws named WICCA I mean wikipedia for a reason. Must find out. But yeah I barely trust it. You can rest assure that if you search anything on there that isnt constant with the "mainstream"then bye bye. It won't be there.Or it is purported. Censorship shit makes me sick. But I understand censorship is vitally needed depending what viewpoint. [I know the punctuation is'nt correct]

[sofiarune]

@lopytube Beware of people who seem to know what they're talking about on the internet. Using jargon does not guarantee that they make sense. This place is full of google scholars.

Unless you're not being serious. In which case my defense is that sarcasm is hard to detect on the internet. :P

[lopytube]

@sofiarune

Nice I do the samething when I can't read the sarcasm on the internet(which is why I never like online interaction)

I really was sincere but I'm afraid I have to face the-overwhelming "youtube professor".

Theres actually a video from collegehumor that touches on this.lol

But thats why took the safe zone and said hes at least aware.

I'm not certain

[dltanner99]

Alternative view of evolution see video book trailer

[PsychoSocialChange]

Corrections to my post: I meant: "I remember thinking it would be near impossible for different groups NOT to interbreed."

[PsychoSocialChange]

This is so great. After I took my first Bio-Anthro class I was hooked. My prof only taught Out of Africa and pretty much suggested anyone who thought otherwise was racist. I remember thinking that it would be near impossible for different groups of humans to interbreed...The Out of Africa model suggests two migrations with zero interbreeding between sub-species. To me, this makes zero sense, and now it looks like there is evidence to start to prove this.

[Mdebacle]

The flaw in the new theory, as pointed out in The Economist (May 8), is that Neanderthal mtDNA is non-human and was not passed on to Eurasian humans.

We should conclude that Neanderthals were the hybrid offspring of human males with Eurasin DNA and non-human females (probably Heidelberg or Homo-whatever)

[LithodidMan]

@Mdebacle I don't think we need to go way out for an explanation. MtDNA is a very powerful tool for divergence studies, but it gives false divergence times (by orders of magnitude) if a species experiences a bottleneck event which is by far the more likely explanation given better resolution of Neanderthal MtDNA.

[Mdebacle]

@LithodidMan

As The Economist also pointed out, Neanderthals have 90% of "human accelerated region" and 10% nomatch. The implication is that they were 90% human and 10% ape. Unless Eurasian humans have some of that distinctive Neanderthal/chimp DNA, the simplest expanation is that Neanderthals were the hybrids.

[LithodidMan]

@Mdebacle No, it does not in any way imply that Neanderthals are 10% ape. I am not entirely sure where you get that. 90% of the HAR is the same as modern human, the remaining 10% is unique to neanderthal lineage, if they were sequencing us they would call it the 90% Neanderthal accelerated region. The hybrid explanation makes no sense biologically, paleontologically, does not explain the genetics at all, and is not promoted by your economist article.

[Mdebacle]

@LithodidMan [10 % unique to NM lineage]

If Eurasians were descended from NM we would have some of it.

watch?v=QPXjOaXzJ2I

NM mtDNA has the same 90% human look.

The ape ancestor of NM was probably Ardipithicus, something mercifully exterminated, not chimp.

watch?v=lEpOtSYMyHI

Mullikin of NIH refers to some NM DNA "ancestral form just like the chimpanzee"..

If Africans mated with NM, half the mtDNA would have been NM, 5% of the HAR plus some nuclear was steenking ape. That aint us.

[LithodidMan]

@Mdebacle Again, I think you are missing some basics of population genetics. As I said before, the consensus is that the initial mtDNA results that showed no interbreeding are due to the ~15kya bottlenecki event that modern humans went through. It is odd to me that you cite Mulliken but are completely arguing against his conclusions. His quote about ancestral like chimp was in reference to allelic het-zy, not that the 10% was chimp-like. We have lost some variation NM did not.

[Mdebacle]

@LithodidMan

The bottleneck that human mtDNA went thru would have preceeded the meeting with NM and would not explain why NM mtEve disappeared. As The Economist pointed out it would require NM males mating with human females instead of the expected dominant human males with NM females.

Mullikin is an example of admitting a fact and avoiding its implications.

If NM was maybe 3 million base pairs closer to chimps, then some showing up in Eurasians would prove his/your case.

[karlkarlkarl1234]

It is only a *hypothesis* that this shared DNA came from interbreeding with Neanderthals and is contrary to many other sound theories such as the Out-of-Africa model. The reality is that no-one knows, this is merely a scientific guess with no evidence, but that doesn't stop the media from inflating and selling it to the viewers as fact :]

[LithodidMan]

@karlkarlkarl1234 There is a huge amount of evidence that supports interbreeding and cannot be explained by any other known mechanisms. I am not sure by what measure these are guesses without evidence. The papers I cite and link in the description are not "the media" but peer-reviewed journal article with hard data.

[karlkarlkarl1234]

@LithodidMan

"huge amount of evidence that supports interbreeding"

Like what? It can be explained by many different mechanisms.

"by what measure these are guesses"

That's what a hypoothesis is, a yet unsubstantiated educated guess.

Personally I believe yes there was interbreeding and it lead to this, but it is still important to differentiate opinion from what has been proven.

[super00su]

he means he when beyond college algebra LOL

[083770]

Nice punchline, btw. I always thought people from Papua New Guinea left Africa much later, less than 40 thousand yrs ago... about 20 thousand years AFTER neanderthals had died out.

[StevoDog21]

How is it explained that African populations also had these genes? And how can all populations be considered a single breeding pool, with the distances involved? It seems like a little of a stretch to say the ideas of Wolpoff are confirmed.

[LithodidMan]

@StevoDog21 1) In all of the Green et al. analysis Sub-Saharan African population did not carry the Neanderthal genes. 2) While it varies, the general 'rule of thumb' in population genetics is that gene flow between populations is maintained if at least one interbreeding event occurs every 50 generations 3) For decades Wolpoff has claimed that early modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, the Green et al. paper absolutely confirms this.

[super00su]

@LithodidMan

who in Africa has the genes Libya, Ethiopia, Egypt, morocco (north Africans) ?

[AncientAtheist]

Actually, it's probably only about 20 million to 1 chance that one of them has watched the video. Probably even better odds than that when you start factoring likely demographics of internet users and people from the scientific community.

All that out of the way - fascinating stuff. I don't see how people can't find human evolution and the latest scientific findings to be totally engrossing. And I can say that without having any science background.

[skinnyjohnsen]

I think I can hear it, San people saying; You bastard!

[Cyrathil]

Anthropology a real science? What next, grave digging is a true science? I understand how ideas have to be debated, but that's not debate. That's derision.

[tattooskin72]

why would this be "racist"? I've actually heard of this before... was one of many ideas trying to explain what happened to Neanderthal. We should keep an open mind with these things.

[LithodidMan]

@MouseHusic Yes, I have a labret.

[taliesinknol]

The ultimate irony: Primitive human DNA living on in the form of creationists...

[Waage83]

@taliesinknol the old joke.

It is funny how people who do not believe in evolution seam's to be the least evolved.

[kv1901]

nice ending ;)

[TipoftheSlung]

Facinating, i have just recently watched a series called "the incredible human journey" (available from user MrUnscientific) which hung its hat on the out of africa peg. I am going to have to look into this whole thing a little further.

[LithodidMan]

@TipoftheSlung As Wolpoff explained it, there is not a real conflict between the out of Africa view and the multiregional view except by some who would create an either outdated or strawman view of the other. His complaint was some of the OoA people making the claim that if you were a multiregionalist then you believed that all of the major races evolved from a different homind in different speciation events, something nobody believes (at least not for about the last century). (cont'd)

[LithodidMan]

(cont'd) A comparison would be to say that if you support the out of Africa hypothesis then you believe that none of the waves of out-migration prior to Mt-Eve contributed anything at all to the modern human genome, which I doubt many (if any) people would claim. Okay, maybe those douchebags by the water cooler 8 years ago would think that....

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

Thank you!

[Terrencje]

5. But that is more fun than science. Now I will go to bed and will read the paper tomorrow. Also when will you be on blog tv again? I specially registered to see you.

cheers,

Terrence

[Terrencje]

4. Also the dutch creaionist Peter Borger with his GuToB theory (don't bother to look it up because it isn't worth it) made a big deal about this because he considers Homo erectus, neanderthals and us to one big species (and also baramin, or created kind). Now he is distorting history by claiming that all evolutionists thought that neanderthals and humans didn't interbreed.

Fun thing is is that Wood now considers H. habilis and the new A. sediba as part of the Human baramin (see pandasthumb).

[bewarethelizards42]

This is where I pull my 'Well, I've certainly dated guys that were pretty neanderthal!' line, right? :D

And you are right about anthropologists ;)

[Terrencje]

3. And when you think about it. Tigers and lions share their last common ancestor more than 3 million years ago (according to the TimeTree database) and they can produce offspring (sterile, but they are alive nonetheless). We and neanderthals share a common ancestor 'only' about 600.000-800.000 years ago so it's no wonder that they could contrbute to the human genepool and thus be the same species (according to Meyrs definition).

[Terrencje]

2. Link to that paper: tinyurl . com / 39fnp7u. So I think there is still some distinction between us (Homo sapiens) and neanderthals, although I am not going to call them Homo neanderthalensis anymore but Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

[LithodidMan]

At some point I would like to do a vid on Wolpoff's more controversial thoughts on the 'biased' taxonomy of homins. Basically that some of the differences between even very different groups of hominins would be ridiculed if they were species of bird or rodents or invertebrates.

[owchywawa]

Nothing wrong with mitochondrial DNA of course, but I just thought they had already sequenced it it. I may have been mistaken.

[Terrencje]

1. I just got the mail too and I skimmed it over but I will read it tomorrow (it is nighttime over here now). It's a big news that neanderthals contributed to the non-african gene pool. But they still calculated an estimate of divergence between neanderthals and us that was consistent with the estimate of mtDNA. Also last year there was an article in PNAS that claimed that modern women (Homo sapiens sapiens) have a birth mechanism not seen in any other animal (including neanderthals).

[LithodidMan]

@Terrencje @Terrencje Yes, the Weaver paper was very interesting, although I do remain skeptical of their Neanderthal reconstruction with a sample size of one (they are very likely correct if the comparisons they did with some of the other Homo and Aust. material was valid).

[owchywawa]

Oh cool.  I'll probably look at it later. Isn't it just mitochondrial DNA though?

[LithodidMan]

@owchywawa No, this is the nuclear DNA, mTDNA sequence from Neanderthals was published in 2008.

[RankAndFileGuy]

Damn, I don't know why, but I love your videos. They are long, and I usually don't like long videos, but I always watch yours from the very beginning till the end. I'm about to catch up with some of your older ones. If I ever visit the US I'm buying you beer!

[CrapsWithBears]

HA! When my wife was in grad school, she worked for an anthropologist. Some of the articles she came across, mostly in the area of cultural anthropology, were anything BUT scientific. I remember one she showed me "analyzed" the writing on bathroom walls. By "analyzed", I mean the author essentially vented about how unfair such-and-such was to such-and-such. I remember getting angry that people were getting government funding for such junk.