It makes sense. It accounts for a lot of the variety in our gene pool. Humans and Neanderthals were hanging out in Egypt together 40,000 or so years ago. Maybe they collaborated to built the pyramids. I wonder if one species enslaved the other? Many questions arise.
I would like to know how all the different races came about. There had to be seperations at some points in time. This study proves we all aren't the same.
@thebigcougar We are all still mostly homo sapien. Neanderthal lived in Europe during at least one glacial period. It explains the lighter skin and how homo sapiens picked up that gene on their way to Europe plus the red hair
Ive got to say. Not that impressed. less than 1 per cent of the genome contaminant?
When you consider that the human genome has between 20 000 and 30 000 genes then that 1 percent can still be a lot of contaminant. You can see the way he says it as well. Like he is telling a white lie. 1 percent doesnt sound like an awful lot but in terms of genetics it is huge
...so ummm, this really is planet of the apes? If you are one of those religious types, this info. would seem to fit nicely into the Biblical story, which indicates that there was some "type" of humanoid on the planet before God created his own humans. One created and one evolved from an ape-like creature? It makes one wonder...if you are a religious person. If you are someone who ascribes to evolution, it's not a problem.
Doesn't this imply that not everyone came out of Africa, like they have been trying to tell us? Many Europeans who have DNA tests done, will not show any percentage of African DNA. Doesn't this imply that there were two separate types of Humanoids evolving on the planet at the same time? Obviously, Neanderthals are not extinct. Maybe this is planet of the apes after all. <--Genetic humor, don't take that seriously.
@Zodslayer No, that is incorrect. Genetic and fossil evidence is clear that archaic Homo sapiens evolved into anatomically modern H. sapiens some 200 - 150 kya (thousand years ago), that members of one branch of H. sapiens left Africa by between 125 - 60 kya, and that over time these humans replaced earlier populations of H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus in Europe and Asia. It now appears that interbreeding with H. neanderthal did occur c. 60 kya, but this doesn't contradict the theory.
@Zodslayer In a way yes, that would mean people who have Neanderthal DNA will have ancestors that originated out of Africa. Maybe the Earth was filled with different archaic humanoids that could produce viable offspring, and mixing, even at a low frequency and isolation along with other evolutionary factors contributed to the varying of human races? remember, Neanderthal is the first humanoid to be sequenced, but there could be others. It's hard to identify humanoid species based on fossils.
So would the mutation of the G20210A genome, possibly be one of several autoimmune type diseases. It seems, that as the body matures , it doesn't recognize the DNA patterns of primary organs, and tissues and negates the structure of the sequence, thus attacks itself? Just interested to hear what you think.
Seems the palaeo-anthropologists have done an about-turn, until recently as I understood, they thought there wasn't any trace of Neaderthal DNA in modern humans. I always suspected there was, so this is so good to hear! I'm hoping they'll discover that Rhesus negative blood (like I have) is another Neanderthal trait, better that than theories of 'Lizard aliens' which so far seems to be all thats offered as an explanation Rh-
It would seem to me that Neandertal cannot be considered to be extinct if he has descendants still alive today. Is there some arcane reason that his descendants being counted among us doesn't constitute continued existance for his species? Granted, we are not purely his species, but then we aren't purely Homo sap either.
@puncheex this black guy told me that only sub saharan africans are full homo sapien, and that others have about 2% neanderthal genes, but im thinking arent neanderthal a different species?
@communismkills1 I'm also wondering about the same thing but a bit different from yours. They said Neanderthal interbred with Homo sapiens, didn't that mean Neanderthal was a sub-species of Homo sapiens? Isn't that only individuals of the same species can interbreed and produce fertile offsprings? How come modern human have about 2% of Neanderthal DNA and they say Neanderthal was not Homo sapiens? It's really confusing.
@Lunaikka It is possible for species with shared genera (plural of genus) to produce viable offpsring. So-called ligers, various kinds of zebroids, bovids, bear hybrids, canids -- there are hundreds of examples. That Neandertahl was its own species -- Homo neanderthalensis -- would not in itself prevent interspecies breeding from taking place with members of Homo sapiens.
(2) Neanderthal had some specific Eurasian human nuclear DNA.
The theory is Eurasian humans are hybrids of African humans and Neanderthal.
The hole in the theory (thank The Economist May 8) is that no humans have Neanderthal mtDNA.
The solution is that Neaderthals were the hybrids - of human males with Eurasian DNA and non-human females ( probably Heidelberg or Homo-whatever which was also a hybrid)
@bluesteelzephyr nope goodsir this means that in africa their werent homosapiens where whites came from! the neaderthal was the white man and sprung of another un-evolved race! that means we all werent black!
"Brain size reduction in modern humans over the past 40,000 years is well-documented," the researchers said in their notes. "We hypothesize that growing smaller but similarly efficient brains might have represented an energetic advantage, which paid off in faster reproductive rates in modern [humans] compared to Pleistocene people. Reducing brain size thus might represent an evolutionary advantage."
After birth, Neanderthal brains grew faster than those of modern humans . . .
Growing large brains at a fast pace is an energy-intensive process, which can only be sustained by large, late-maturing mothers."Compared to modern humans, it thus appears that Neanderthals had somewhat slower life histories," the researchers said. This meant they reached sexual maturity later and may have lived longer.
Neanderthal women had to face similar child-bearing problems as modern human women. The female Neanderthal pelvis was wider than in modern human females--but the head size of Neanderthal newborns was also larger.
3-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils found in Russia and Syria (left) suggests that our closest human relatives had brains as large as ours at birth and larger than ours as adults.
This is a fascinating project and will explain a lot about human evolution as they continue to investigate. However, I would like to know why and how NIH was involved in this Neanderthal genome project.
@AnthroGenetics: The actual work was performed under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Genetics in Leipzig, Germany, under the leadership of the project director, Svante Paabo. It would appears the NIH as a member of the Human Genome project probably contracted to provide the hardware and expertise for the actual DNA sequencing. Another possibility is that Dr. Mulliken went on leave from NIH to participate. It should say in the paper who did what.
This explains a lot
Encephalitisify 1 week ago
It makes sense. It accounts for a lot of the variety in our gene pool. Humans and Neanderthals were hanging out in Egypt together 40,000 or so years ago. Maybe they collaborated to built the pyramids. I wonder if one species enslaved the other? Many questions arise.
Barcs 2 weeks ago
I would like to know how all the different races came about. There had to be seperations at some points in time. This study proves we all aren't the same.
thebigcougar 8 months ago
@thebigcougar We are all still mostly homo sapien. Neanderthal lived in Europe during at least one glacial period. It explains the lighter skin and how homo sapiens picked up that gene on their way to Europe plus the red hair
Barcs 2 weeks ago
Ive got to say. Not that impressed. less than 1 per cent of the genome contaminant?
When you consider that the human genome has between 20 000 and 30 000 genes then that 1 percent can still be a lot of contaminant. You can see the way he says it as well. Like he is telling a white lie. 1 percent doesnt sound like an awful lot but in terms of genetics it is huge
Kdanc86 9 months ago
...so ummm, this really is planet of the apes? If you are one of those religious types, this info. would seem to fit nicely into the Biblical story, which indicates that there was some "type" of humanoid on the planet before God created his own humans. One created and one evolved from an ape-like creature? It makes one wonder...if you are a religious person. If you are someone who ascribes to evolution, it's not a problem.
Zodslayer 1 year ago
Doesn't this imply that not everyone came out of Africa, like they have been trying to tell us? Many Europeans who have DNA tests done, will not show any percentage of African DNA. Doesn't this imply that there were two separate types of Humanoids evolving on the planet at the same time? Obviously, Neanderthals are not extinct. Maybe this is planet of the apes after all. <--Genetic humor, don't take that seriously.
Zodslayer 1 year ago
@Zodslayer No, that is incorrect. Genetic and fossil evidence is clear that archaic Homo sapiens evolved into anatomically modern H. sapiens some 200 - 150 kya (thousand years ago), that members of one branch of H. sapiens left Africa by between 125 - 60 kya, and that over time these humans replaced earlier populations of H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus in Europe and Asia. It now appears that interbreeding with H. neanderthal did occur c. 60 kya, but this doesn't contradict the theory.
Vortigern99 10 months ago
@Zodslayer In a way yes, that would mean people who have Neanderthal DNA will have ancestors that originated out of Africa. Maybe the Earth was filled with different archaic humanoids that could produce viable offspring, and mixing, even at a low frequency and isolation along with other evolutionary factors contributed to the varying of human races? remember, Neanderthal is the first humanoid to be sequenced, but there could be others. It's hard to identify humanoid species based on fossils.
wonphi 9 months ago
So would the mutation of the G20210A genome, possibly be one of several autoimmune type diseases. It seems, that as the body matures , it doesn't recognize the DNA patterns of primary organs, and tissues and negates the structure of the sequence, thus attacks itself? Just interested to hear what you think.
deadklown77 1 year ago
Seems the palaeo-anthropologists have done an about-turn, until recently as I understood, they thought there wasn't any trace of Neaderthal DNA in modern humans. I always suspected there was, so this is so good to hear! I'm hoping they'll discover that Rhesus negative blood (like I have) is another Neanderthal trait, better that than theories of 'Lizard aliens' which so far seems to be all thats offered as an explanation Rh-
Liz66bee 1 year ago
It would seem to me that Neandertal cannot be considered to be extinct if he has descendants still alive today. Is there some arcane reason that his descendants being counted among us doesn't constitute continued existance for his species? Granted, we are not purely his species, but then we aren't purely Homo sap either.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex this black guy told me that only sub saharan africans are full homo sapien, and that others have about 2% neanderthal genes, but im thinking arent neanderthal a different species?
communismkills1 1 year ago
@communismkills1 I'm also wondering about the same thing but a bit different from yours. They said Neanderthal interbred with Homo sapiens, didn't that mean Neanderthal was a sub-species of Homo sapiens? Isn't that only individuals of the same species can interbreed and produce fertile offsprings? How come modern human have about 2% of Neanderthal DNA and they say Neanderthal was not Homo sapiens? It's really confusing.
Lunaikka 1 year ago
@Lunaikka It is possible for species with shared genera (plural of genus) to produce viable offpsring. So-called ligers, various kinds of zebroids, bovids, bear hybrids, canids -- there are hundreds of examples. That Neandertahl was its own species -- Homo neanderthalensis -- would not in itself prevent interspecies breeding from taking place with members of Homo sapiens.
Vortigern99 10 months ago
We now know two things:
(1) Neanderthal had non-human mtDNA
(2) Neanderthal had some specific Eurasian human nuclear DNA.
The theory is Eurasian humans are hybrids of African humans and Neanderthal.
The hole in the theory (thank The Economist May 8) is that no humans have Neanderthal mtDNA.
The solution is that Neaderthals were the hybrids - of human males with Eurasian DNA and non-human females ( probably Heidelberg or Homo-whatever which was also a hybrid)
Mdebacle 1 year ago
Yeah, don't contaminate it with modern human DNA! :D
baldingeagle666 1 year ago
@baldingeagle666 Too LATE! LOL
IanJar 1 year ago
Now this is going to be really confusing, because now we are going to have a new meaning for the expression, "The 'N' word."
carl6188 1 year ago
Very interesting indeed. Using excellent science, the story of Homo sapiens out of Africa gets more refined, more accurate, and hard to refute.
bluesteelzephyr 1 year ago
@bluesteelzephyr nope goodsir this means that in africa their werent homosapiens where whites came from! the neaderthal was the white man and sprung of another un-evolved race! that means we all werent black!
AnimationBooks 1 year ago
Subtitler generally did a good job but "fertile crescent" is not the same as "photo crecent" :D
FailedatAngerMgt 1 year ago
@FailedatAngerMgt Thanks for your comment. It is fixed.
GenomeTV 1 year ago
National Geographic
"Brain size reduction in modern humans over the past 40,000 years is well-documented," the researchers said in their notes. "We hypothesize that growing smaller but similarly efficient brains might have represented an energetic advantage, which paid off in faster reproductive rates in modern [humans] compared to Pleistocene people. Reducing brain size thus might represent an evolutionary advantage."
tryanjohnson 1 year ago
National Geographic
After birth, Neanderthal brains grew faster than those of modern humans . . .
Growing large brains at a fast pace is an energy-intensive process, which can only be sustained by large, late-maturing mothers."Compared to modern humans, it thus appears that Neanderthals had somewhat slower life histories," the researchers said. This meant they reached sexual maturity later and may have lived longer.
tryanjohnson 1 year ago
National Geographic
Neanderthal women had to face similar child-bearing problems as modern human women. The female Neanderthal pelvis was wider than in modern human females--but the head size of Neanderthal newborns was also larger.
tryanjohnson 1 year ago
National Geographic
3-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils found in Russia and Syria (left) suggests that our closest human relatives had brains as large as ours at birth and larger than ours as adults.
tryanjohnson 1 year ago
I knew that I was part Neanderthal before these findings came out. I have a massive brow ridge, and wayyyyy too much back hair... :o
freethinker923 1 year ago
This is a fascinating project and will explain a lot about human evolution as they continue to investigate. However, I would like to know why and how NIH was involved in this Neanderthal genome project.
AnthroGenetics 1 year ago
@AnthroGenetics: The actual work was performed under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Genetics in Leipzig, Germany, under the leadership of the project director, Svante Paabo. It would appears the NIH as a member of the Human Genome project probably contracted to provide the hardware and expertise for the actual DNA sequencing. Another possibility is that Dr. Mulliken went on leave from NIH to participate. It should say in the paper who did what.
puncheex 1 year ago
Neaderthal genes eh? Explains a lot about some of my mates!
oneworldfamily 1 year ago
Fascinating - this really is very significant and answers, at last, the question of Sapiens/Neanderthal interbreeding. I want more!
017524062 1 year ago