Neanderthals "Had Sex" With Modern Man

According to Professor Svante Paabo, director of genetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Neanderthals and modern humans had sex across the species barrier. The professor has been using DNA retrieved from fossils to piece together the entire Neanderthal genome, and plans on publishing his findings soon. He recently told a conference that he was sure the two species had had sex, but still had questions as to how "productive" the relations had been. "What I'm really interested in is, did we have children back then and did those children contribute to our variation today?" he said. "I'm sure that they had sex, but did it give offspring that contributed to us? We will be able to answer quite rigorously with the new [Neanderthal genome] sequence." What remains a mystery is what Paleolithic brewery provided the catalyst for these stone age hook-ups.

Comments

humans

[flynt]

Humans... so easy, a caveman can do them.

Re:humans

[joaommp]

Humans will have sex with pretty much everything they can...

(if you don't trust me, think of this: if you can think it, someone has made porn about it, just check the tubes).

Re:humans

[Locke2005]

I believe you are citing Rule 34: If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions.

Damn... now you've given them ideas... (shudder) Neanderthal porn!

Re:humans

[GoochOwnsYou]

Neanderthals primary were in Europe and the middle east. The 2 likley canditates of current ethnicicities with possible Neanderthal DNA would be Arabs and Caucasians.

Re:humans

[thisisaccount2]

Absolutely. Half-elves, half-orcs, half-ogres... half-fiends... centaurs...

Re:humans

[bsDaemon]

I dunno... I hear Nazis had a thing against Poles.... but at any rate, I had heard one time that there were thought to be traces of Neanderthal DNA in the Basque population which is why they are so fairly distinct from other European groups on the genomic level. But I could be wrong.

Re:humans

[Greyfox]

Well I just googled on "Neantheral Porn" and didn't find any... yet. The results are amusing, however. I'm sure that someone is registering neanderthalporn.com as we speak.

Re:humans

[Khyber]

We have had flying cars for some time, now. At least two decades.

But to alow regular people access to those vehicles would cause far more problems than it's worth. They can barely stay on a road, you think they're going to fare better in the air?

Re:humans

[fractoid]

We have had flying cars for some time, now. At least two decades.

But to alow regular people access to those vehicles would cause far more problems than it's worth. They can barely stay on a road, you think they're going to fare better in the air?

I see your point about most people not being remotely competent to control a couple of tons of hot, rapidly moving metal in ANY circumstance - but operating an aircraft is generally easier than operating a car, and you *definitely* have more of a margin for error. It is, admittedly, more dangerous in terms of mechanical failures but modern engineering is pretty darn reliable.

Re:humans

[kurt555gs]

Neanderthal porn has to be better than so really weird Asian pron I have ...... heard of.

Re:humans

[marcobat]

Funny, you have a "ism" in your signature. Are you holding us back? ;-)

Re:humans

[SanityInAnarchy]

Damn... now you've given them ideas... (shudder) Neanderthal porn!

I believe that's Rule 35: if it doesn't exist on the internet, it must be created.

Re:humans

[rcamans]

No, Actually it was ancient human geeks, finding Neanderthal cave women living underground, in caves (the ancient version of the modern mom's basement). Geeks, desperate to have sex with anything, mated with the females. As we all know, most geek breeding is non-productive (premature ejaculation), so almost no 'children" resulted. Can you imagine, kids that looked worse than geeks?

Re:humans

[lwsimon]

I suspect I do, based on my facial bone structure. I'm about 3/4 Germanic and 1/4 Scot. I have a very heavy brow, and my eyes are quite deep-set. I also have quite a bit more body hair than my friends, who are generally of English an Native American ancestry.

Re:humans

[Anonymous Coward]

god's semen coated, gleaming rod sliding in and out of the tight hole of the teenage virgin mary

Re:humans

[Rude Turnip]

I'll just leave this right here to get the ball rolling:
http://motivateurself.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/rule34-3.jpg

Re:humans

[Pseudonym]

I don't know, but I think it's high time someone did something about those homo rhodesiensis bastards who are stealing all our jobs. Bloody non-union mammoth hunters.

Re:humans

[fractoid]

When was the last time you heard of someone crashing their car due to mechanical failure, in or out of warranty? And I mean actual failure ('the suspension arm broke', or 'brakes failed' or whatever) rather than just "I need something to blame for my incompetence". I'm trying but I can't think of any real examples. The only case that comes to mind is that one time that the wheel came off dad's car because the garage only finger-tightened the nuts...

Another point is that compared to falling from building-type altitudes, the speeds that we travel at in cars are quite fast. The classic example is that hitting a brick wall at 100km/h is the same as being dropped nose-first off a 10 story building.

Re:humans

[dangitman]

Consider a car travelling at 100km/h compared to a STOL personal air vehicle landing at 100km/h. Which one is closest to obstacles?

There's not nearly enough information in your question to answer it. Is the car driving in the middle of a desert? Is the air vehicle landing in a shopping mall?

Re:humans

[tuxgeek]

Everyone keeps talking like neanderthals are an extinct sub-human species.
Please stop that right now, they are still here. They have just assimilated into our society.
Go onto any construction site, and you can see them plain as day.
Many have even gotten jobs in civil service. The US Congress is full of them.

Re:humans

[Torodung]

And on that note, it sheds a whole new light to the "messing with sasquatch" campaign as well.

Re:humans

[adolf]

I had a spindle break in two on the rear axle once. This caused the entire wheel (tire, brake drum, hub) to fall completely off, suddenly and without warning. It was the left-side wheel, and I was making a right-hand turn when it happened. The car and I went sideways across a bridge, and managed to stop neatly at the side of the road just shy of a ravine.

No, there was no crash -- but all the components were there for one to occur, except lateral impact. It required all new rotating bits from the axle on out.

The same car also had a back tire separate from the rim, causing a fit of crossed-up driving and a trip backward through a ditch, at pretty decent speed. I'm hesitant to mention it, though, since tires are a "wear item," but the potential for a screaming, cartwheeling death was certainly present.

Also different had a front control arm fail at the ball joint while out of state. Not surprisingly, it was also during a turn, and it was the outside wheel which was affected. And since all that was holding that side together was, at that point, a strut and a tie rod, the afflicted wheel turned hard in one direction and locked there, pinned against the fender.

No, there was no crash there, either -- just a bit of humor and a lot of bad vibes as the thing slid to a smoking stop directly in front of a junk yard in South Carolina. But the components of a crash were all present, except (again) impact. This required a new half-shaft, strut, control arm, tire, fender . . .

My wife had a car accelerate uncontrollably once. It then ran itself, sideways, into her neighbor's porch. Lots of bodywork and paint required, plus a porch, and a lot of fiddling to make the car never do that again.

These were all semi-modern vehicles (1995, 1993, 1996, respectively), and all events happened when the cars were only 5 or 6 years old.

Cars are doing pretty good, I must say - I think automakers have done fairly well in general for the past 15 or 20 years. But they're by no means immune to sudden catastrophic failure.

Re:humans

[Hal_Porter]

But to alow regular people access to those vehicles would cause far more problems than it's worth. They can barely stay on a road, you think they're going to fare better in the air?

I think the way flying cars would work is that you get into and say "Take me to work/home/wherever" and then after that it would navigate by GPS and talking to the other cars / central airtraffic control servers to avoid collisions. You'd need radar too to avoid cars that had a mechanical or software problem but there would not be any way for the 'driver' to do any driving.

So essentially there's be a protocol that made sure that working vehicles had time to detect and avoid non working ones as they glided to the ground.

The odd thing is that it would be easier to do this in 3D because you can effectively stack 'roads' on top of each other as high as you like. And you could even have more advanced protocols higher up, much like as higher frequencies became technically feasible it was possible to mandate more advanced modulation methods in radio. You can't do that on a conventional 2D road, and it would be hard to support a mixed environment where some cars were on various types of autopilot and some were manually driven.

Politically it would be very hard to ban manually driven cars on conventional roads and require autopilot, but for something new and cool like flying cars you could just license different height ranges for different protocols. There's be compliance tests too, but you need those for regular cars. I imagine flying cars would look a bit like a microlight aircraft but with some sort of autopilot and probably a clever safety system so they would glide and/or parachute to safety should they have problems. The other cars would detect this an avoid them on the way down. The normal autopilot system would basically make sure that there was enough space between vehicles to make sure this process was safe.

Re:humans

[jbatista]

Well I just googled on "Neantheral Porn" and didn't find any... yet.

That's easy. "Neanderthal" is too much of a mouthful for some people. Try googling "Caveman porn" when you're not busy (in 3, 2, 1...).

Re:humans

[Valdrax]

Does your rib cage and pelvis flare out to make you egg-shaped, does your lower jaw jut forwards, and is your skull elongated? Seriously, look at a Neaderthal skeleton side-by-side with a human one. A heavy brow is the least of a Neanderthal's odd traits.

Also, there's no evidence that Neanderthals were hairier than humans.

Re:humans

[damburger]

I heard that as well, and it would be consistent with the current hypothesis of Spain being the last hold out of Neanderthal populations. However, I can't stress enough that what we consider 'ethnicity' has no real correspondence to actual genetics.

Re:humans

[damburger]

I also have a heavy brow and deep set eyes, although I am not very hairy. I am also 1/4 Scottish but I think the rest of my ancestry is (distantly, i.e. a few centuries according to my grandfathers research) central/eastern European.

I don't think the heavy brow is a neanderthal trait. Your skull would be a very distinct shape if you were: http://www.ifi.uzh.ch/~zolli/CAP/comparingNeand.htm

Re:humans

[DarkProphet]

You jest, but how do we know it isn't so?

I'm too lazy to look around for it at the moment, but I wonder if there are any synchronous comparable samples of both "human" and neanderthal DNA. That is to say, do we have samples of DNA from both humans and neanderthals, from say 15,000 years ago? How do those samples compare in similarity to modern human DNA? Maybe its just a gut feeling, but I strongly suspect that there is a real, even likely possibility that neanderthal descended genes are present in modern-day humans. It would be incredibly interesting to have that proven or disproven.

Re:humans

[Carewolf]

Arabs are Caucasian. Caucasian is wider term than Aryan so that it includes Semitic people like Jews and Arabs.

Re:humans

[renegadesx]

Yes, technically you are correct. Usually when most people say Caucasian they mean "white boy" like your typical Anglo-Saxon looking person.
However I think people get my point. That being said that's only hypothetical as we do not know if human and Neanderthals were compatible enough to produce offspring, last time I checked that was still an unknown.

Re:humans

[jonadab]

> You jest, but how do we know it isn't so?

Because, Neanderthals had a larger brain capacity than modern humans. If Congress were full of them, we'd have more intelligent legislation.

(In all seriousness, if you gave a Neanderthal man modern clothing, he could probably go about freely in any modern city without anyone noticing.)

Re:humans

[donscarletti]

you're also a racist fuck and I wish there were less of this shit on slashdot

Why is he racist? Genes are genes, ethnic groups have different genes to other ethnic groups, that's what makes them look different. It doesn't make them any intrinsically better or worse at being a "person" in the modern understanding any more than a Labrador is an intrinsically better or worse pet than a golden retriever.

If any ethnic group had Neanderthal DNA in its genepool, based on geographic range and skull shape chances are it is Caucasian people, my own race. If this is true, what difference does it make? We've done fairly well for ourselves I think, we're as human as anyone else. I don't really know many other Caucasian people where I live, but I don't feel like I'm grazing with a heard of some other species and I don't think they consider me to be a domesticated Neanderthal pet (at least I hope not).

Sometimes racial studies are done for the purposes of proving a master race. But usually, it's just because different people have different physiologies and have different common ailments, different recommended lifestyle and diet. If something as superficially obvious as race can tell a doctor what that person is likely to be allergic to and whether that person is likely to have diabetes, it is useful to know.

However, to me, those "Race and IQ" studies that seem to keep popping up on marginal websites and drawing the bulk of the attention, although not necessarily false, serve little other purpose than to piss people off. Even if they are true, I can see very little practical application, to me they just serve to aggravate the "PC" crowd, but sadly catch the individuals of the races at the bottom of the list (who may themselves be quite smart) in the crossfire.

Re:humans

[HiThere]

Neanderthals probably had poorer speech capabilities than Cro-magnon (a guess based on nasal sinuses and palate configuration). They also were probably worse at throwing things overhand. (Their favored hunting style was for a bunch of them to take spears and get in close to thrust for the kill.) Also, there's some evidence that their women had narrower hips relative to the size of the baby's head at birth. This probably translated into higher mortality in both the mother and the baby.

We do know that groups of Cro-magnons and Neanderthals lived in the same place at approximately the same time. Proving that it's exactly the same time is quite difficult, and I'm not certain that it's possible, but they certainly *could* have co-habited. They seem to have exchanged styles of tool-making, so occasional close relationships seems clear.

Neanderthals tended to be stockier and more muscular. As a result they needed to eat more, but they were also less sensitive to cold. (They evolved during a glaciation.) It's not at all clear to me that they deserve to be called a separate species. They've several distinct physical features, but that's not enough. So, e.g., do red-heads. (E.g., they tend to be more sensitive to pain.)

Also, don't pay too much attention to the visual appearance of museum reconstructions. They are made with an eye towards making the public aware of the differences, and as a result they tend to exaggerate any theorized differences portrayed by current (or recent past) science.
 

Re:humans

[oracleofbargth]

And that's because Humans and Neanderthals are actually the same "species".

BZZZZZT! Wrong! Same genus (homo) but different species. Neanderthals were homo neanderthalensis while modern humans are homo sapiens sapiens.

Still not correct. The debate is still on whether they are a separate species (Homo Neanderthalensis), or merely a subspecies of humans (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis).

If the researcher in the story should find evidence that Modern humans and Neanderthals did in fact interbreed on a regular basis, the findings may likely result in the classification of Neanderthal man being set as a subspecies of human rather than a separate species.

Of course they did

[turing_m]

Developers, developers, developers...

Re:Of course they did

[cayenne8]

"Human beings will Bork ANYthing so thats not supprising..."

And I swear...I've known people that I know are proof that not only did they have sex with them..but, that they procreated, and exist today..hahaha.

:)

Neanderthals "Had Sex" With Modern Man....

[Anonymous Coward]

...and later went on to form the first government - which has been screwing modern man ever since.

Scientific?

[Dan East]

"I'm sure that they had sex"

What evidence? The article says:

"We will be able to answer quite rigorously with the new [Neanderthal genome] sequence."

"Due to the length of time that has elapsed since Neanderthals became extinct, any trace of their DNA in modern humans could have been diluted below detectable levels. Paabo hopes to overcome this by scanning the Neanderthal genome for the genes of modern humans."

Okay, he hopes he will be able to overcome this technical limitation. So in other words, the statement that they had sex is just his personal opinion?

Re:Scientific?

[wizardforce]

The neanderthals were close enough to modern humans that in my own opinion, it is possible that humans intermingled socially with them however, it was also my understanding that their DNA was distinct enough from ours to make them unable to interbreed and thus a separate species. Genetic markers in the million base sequence that has been reconstructed so far indicate that they fall significantly outside of typical variation for modern humans.

Re:Scientific?

[icebike]

Diluted below detectable levels

I too was sort of shocked to read that quote.

Genetics doesn't exactly operate like Homeopathy.

He should have known that mitochondrial DNA doesn't dilute in the normal sense. Its been used to trace most human ancestors to a couple places in Africa, almost to a couple of individual females.

I have to wonder just what his basis was, other than sheer speculation. Given the state of civilization (or the lack thereof) at the time, one would not be surprised to see conflict and in conflict taking of prisoners.

Re:Scientific?

[Toonol]

Yeah, there seems to be nothing of substance there.

I'm mean, I'm SURE we had sex with neandertals; it's nearly absurd to suggest we didn't. However, there's absolutely no point to the article until some DNA or other evidence is found.

Re:Scientific?

[interkin3tic]

"I'm sure that they had sex"

What evidence? The article says:

"We will be able to answer quite rigorously with the new [Neanderthal genome] sequence."

He's -sure- of his hypothesis. You think scientists don't become convinced of our own hypotheses before we have actual evidence? We do. I've been quite convinced of my own hypotheses and even occasionally ignored evidence that suggests I'm wrong, much to my later regret. I'm sure every scientist, and probably everyone else as well, has committed similar sins at some point.

Re:Scientific?

[schon]

Its been used to trace most human ancestors to a couple places in Africa, almost to a couple of individual females.

Two questions:

1. If it was two females, how did they reproduce?

2. Do you have any pictures? (Maybe an artist's interpretation? :)

Re:Scientific?

[jschen]

I realize you're trying to be funny, but mitochondrial DNA is inherited from mothers only. Therefore, it is good for tracing lineage through females, but completely useless for tracing lineage through males.

Re:Scientific?

[autophile]

Its been used to trace most human ancestors... almost to a couple of individual females.

All humans to one common female ancestor.

Re:Scientific?

[Toonol]

You are absolutely right. Makes perfect sense. The trouble is that the scientist is basically saying the exact same thing you are, with just as much evidence. It's a non-story, until he actually FINDS evidence one way or another. All it is now is a press release. Announcing the INTENT to do something scientific.

Re:Scientific?

[tygt]

Neanderthals are often classified as a sub-species - Homo sapiens neanderthalis - as well as occasionally classified as a separate species.

Given that offspring of cross-species breedings can and often do produce a fertile result (eg, see Wolf x Jackal - definitely separate species, we're not talking breeds here, as well as many other hybridizations), there's much to point to H.sapiens.sapiens x H(.sapiens?).neanderthalis being able to interbreed, especially if they were only a sub-species.

Re:Scientific?

[bennomatic]

I'm sure every scientist, and probably everyone else as well, has committed similar sins at some point.

What evidence do you have to support that statement?

Re:Scientific?

[rcamans]

Actually the female passes on the mitochondria genetic material without change. The mitochondria do not do the split and mix that regular chromosomes do, so their structure is stable over long periods. Male Y chromosomes never do the split and mix thing either, only one Y chromosome is available in the egg-sperm meeting. So it is relatively stable, and very small.
So they could get a lot of info from this stuff. If they look for it. sequencing the mitochondria chromosomes is separate from the main sequence.

Re:Scientific?

[rcamans]

Actually science does not have any test that will indicate that two critters will or will not breed successfully, within the same genus. There have been successful matings between South American and other cats, for example. SA cats have 36 chromosomes, other cats all have 38. but mating does produce kittens, although most are sterile (with 37 chromosomes). So fairly large variations in chromosomes does not bar breeding. So if Humans and Neanderthals turn out to be the same genus and just different species, then they could conceivably have breed. In reality, the successful breeding is the only current test which exists which says two critters are of the same genus. It used to be that the definition of species was that two different species could not interbreed, but that is not true.

We can finally explain wherefore Celtic people are

[a whoabot]

At last we can explain wherefore Celtic people are who they are!

(*Dodges tossed caber*)

Beer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Helping ugly people have sex since 30,000 BCE!!!

What a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

The only evidence of that would be if the DNA shows that the offspring contributed to our DNA, which he hasn't shown yet. He may as well have said we're desended from aliens, and he's now looking for evidence of that in our DNA.

For in those days

[icebike]

There was this odd quote someone showed me once from some book of the Bible (have to say in advance, I'm not a Bible studier, so I know not where it came from):

    For in those days there were giants in the earth,
    and they bred with the son of man...

Of course the Bible scholars will surely weigh in here and call me names and "educate me", but one wonders if ancient verbal histories might have more to them than it first seems.

Re:For in those days

[Anonymous Coward]

The bible scholars ignore that and explain it away, deny and ignore it. They don't want to touch it. It is so stupid, so abhorrent to reason it's radioactive but it is in the bible.

It's Genesis 5 and right off the top it seems to say that angels (sons of god) had sex with humans (daughters of men) and begot giants (nephilim). It's the setup and reason for the flood. A close reading shows Noah and his family wasn't chosen for being godly and good but for being "perfect of his generations" i.e not half-breeds!

No bible scholar is going to tell you what the book actually says there.

There is a apocryphal jewish book of Enoch, kind of a fan fiction from the first century that fills in the back story for this one chapter. It's all so absurd but that does really seem to be what the chapter was meant to say and what ancient people read it saying to them. People who were almost as close as we can get to being the authors of the bible.

Re:For in those days

[beadfulthings]

You don't even have to confine yourself to scriptural references. Everybody's mythology is chock-full of references to "others"--titans or giants, elves, dwarves, fairies or Shining Folk, really beautiful people or really ugly ones, people with supernatural or "different" powers, people who forced humans to mate with them or were forced by humans. Everybody's folk tales, national epics, fairy tales, religious scriptures, myths and legends--they've all got these sorts of references. It's interesting just to speculate on where and how "we" (humanity collectively) came up with all this wonderful stuff. I've always thought at least some of it must have had to do with our Neanderthal connections--whatever those turn out to be.

Re:For in those days

[mikael]

There are some parasites which make their way into the human brain and form cysts. If one of these forms next to the pituitary gland, that will force the person to grow taller than average. I always wondered whether these giants weren't simply a biblical city that had a parasite problem.

Re:For in those days

[CannonballHead]

The bible scholars ignore that and explain it away, deny and ignore it. They don't want to touch it. It is so stupid, so abhorrent to reason it's radioactive but it is in the bible.

I'd like to meet these "Bible scholars." Are they the kind of scholars that don't care if it is right or wrong in the first place? I've talked to plenty of Bible - and even Hebrew - scholars that talk about that passage. "Touch it," as you say.

It's Genesis 5 and right off the top it seems to say that angels (sons of god) had sex with humans (daughters of men) and begot giants (nephilim). It's the setup and reason for the flood.

That appears to be what it says, indeed. Why not let it say that?

A close reading shows Noah and his family wasn't chosen for being godly and good but for being "perfect of his generations" i.e not half-breeds!

Hmmm. I don't think that's the reason. Where is this "close reading" ?

No bible scholar is going to tell you what the book actually says there.

How many "Bible scholars" have you met? Incidentally, why not capitalize Bible, just like one would capitalize Romeo and Juliet or Tom Sawyer or any other book?

This is important

[Raindance]

The issue of introgression (gene flow from neanderthals to modern humans) is hugely important. It's a lot more important than the curiosity or oddity the Times article makes it out to be.

All the published studies looking for this introgression have been based on neanderthal mDNA. Since it doesn't undergo recombination, it's not a good marker, and the negative results so far are predictable and do not preclude gene flow. It'll be interesting to see Paabo's results. He's been working on getting nDNA data from neanderthal remains for a while now, and perhaps this is a hint that he's found some introgression.

Why it's important:

The small picture of why it's important is it would substantially redefine our family tree. We could refine our primate phylogeny.

The bigger, more hazy, and potentially earthshaking picture of why this could be important is that it doesn't take many viable pairings to get genes from one gene pool to another, and these genes could have been very important to our development. Modern humans and neanderthals were under many of the same environmental stresses but likely developed different adaptions to them. This includes behavior and cognition genes. As Stringer points out in the article, "in the last 10,000-15,000 years before they died out, around 30,000 years ago, Neanderthals were giving their dead complex burials and making tools and jewellery, such as pierced beads, like modern humans.” Proto-modern humans were smart. But neanderthals were also smart, potentially in different and complimentary ways. And perhaps it took a combination of proto-modern human and neanderthal genes to truly make the modern human mind. Our brains could be an example of 'hybrid vigor' on a grand scale.

So the big question mark is whether, given we can determine gene flow, if this hypothetical combination of proto-modern human and neanderthal cognitive adaptions could have led to the cultural explosion of ~30-50 thousand years ago. The biology is plausible and the timing's right. The data's still out, but it's coming in. Odder hypotheses have come true.

Re:This is important

[TrekkieGod]

Man, so the message is clear: we will have to fuck those nasty aliens when they show up to get that "hybrid vigor" on a galactic scale.

So that was Jim Kirk's motivation!

Re:This is important

[Locke2005]

Uh, no... that was the alien women's motivation in fucking him. Why else would any of them engage in such an unpleasant task?

Re:This is important

[JustOK]

So they could be on TV

Re:This is important

[Michael Woodhams]

All the published studies looking for this introgression have been based on neanderthal mDNA.

There is this one (citation follows.) It is based purely on the pattern of variation within modern humans - it does not rely on ancient DNA. The Neandertal DNA project should conclusively confirm or refute the hypothesis that the gene came from Neandertals (although it may have come from H. erectus instead.) (There is one earlier similar paper from about 2002 I think, but I found it unconvincing and I can't be bothered finding it.)

doi: 10.1073/pnas.0606966103 Evans et al. "Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage" Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 103 18178 (2006)

Abstract

At the center of the debate on the emergence of modern humans and their spread throughout the globe is the question of whether archaic Homo lineages contributed to the modern human gene pool, and more importantly, whether such contributions impacted the evolutionary adaptation of our species. A major obstacle to answering this question is that low levels of admixture with archaic lineages are not expected to leave extensive traces in the modern human gene pool because of genetic drift. Loci that have undergone strong positive selection, however, offer a unique opportunity to identify low-level admixture with archaic lineages, provided that the introgressed archaic allele has risen to high frequency under positive selection. The gene microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size during development and has experienced positive selection in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens. Within modern humans, a group of closely related haplotypes at this locus, known as haplogroup D, rose from a single copy 37,000 years ago and swept to exceptionally high frequency (70% worldwide today) because of positive selection. Here, we examine the origin of haplogroup D. By using the interhaplogroup divergence test, we show that haplogroup D likely originated from a lineage separated from modern humans 1.1 million years ago and introgressed into humans by 37,000 years ago. This finding supports the possibility of admixture between modern humans and archaic Homo populations (Neanderthals being one possibility). Furthermore, it buttresses the important notion that, through such adminture, our species has benefited evolutionarily by gaining new advantageous alleles. The interhaplogroup divergence test developed here may be broadly applicable to the detection of introgression at other loci in the human genome or in genomes of other species.

Too bad there's no evidence.

[Perp Atuitie]

This guy is "sure" they screwed, but presents nothing but his surety. There's apparently not the slightest evidence that this is more than a fantasy, however cool a brain-vid it might paint. So the story is that he's going to look some more for evidence that they not only screwed but bred. Maybe after he figures that out there will actually be a story. A pixel is a terrible thing to waste.

Jurassic Park redux

[One_Minute_Too_Late]

All we need to do now is to take that DNA, splice it back together with human 'junk' DNA and breed Neanderthals for the next great Disney theme park! Instead of being entertained by people walking around in giant suits pretending to be cartoon characters, it could be the greatest edutainment center in the world!!

But seriously. People have sex across interspecies barriers all the time; animal, vegetable, mineral, it doesn't matter. I doubt that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals looked at each other and said, Hey, I can't have sex with you, you're obviously a different species! Probably they thought to themselves, Two arms, two legs, looks about right, the bits are in the right places, why not?

Re:Jurassic Park redux

[lawpoop]

But seriously. People have sex across interspecies barriers all the time; animal, vegetable, mineral, it doesn't matter. I doubt that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals looked at each other and said, Hey, I can't have sex with you, you're obviously a different species! Probably they thought to themselves, Two arms, two legs, looks about right, the bits are in the right places, why not?

I see what you're saying, but there is a good argument against Neanderthal/Homo Sapiens intercourse. Humans have sex with all kinds of animals, but two they certainly *do not* have sex with are chimpanzees and gorillas. Why not? Because they keep to themselves and they don't want or have anything to do with humans, and if they ever felt threatened or bothered, they will kill you with a wayward strike. Chimpanzees in particular are vicious motherfuckers, and will rip your arms out of their sockets and chew your face off if they get into a rage. They're *much* stronger than they look, and they have the psychological makeup of a psychopath. Gorillas aren't mean like chimpanzees, but still they won't put up with any of your bullshit.

It's sort of the same thing saying that a human being had never had sex with a lion, panther, baboon, or bear. They're just not as approachable in real life as they are in the movies.

Now, humans *have* had sex with other great apes, such as orangutans. In fact, I read on the internet a few years back about an orangutan that was kept in captivity as a prostitute in southeast Asia. It was very sad.

So to me it's an open question. Were Neanderthals more like gorillas, or more like orangutans, in terms of their sexual receptivity to humans? To me, it's an open question. If you look at this skeletal comparison, a Neanderthal is obviously a creature you don't want upset with you.

Re:Jurassic Park redux

[Neofluffybunny]

So the real question is if Neanderthals were approchable? I don't think that this would be the issue. If our two species were in a war like state, we may capture females and proceed to mate. Any chance to procreate maybe needed to increase the chance of survival of the species, even with less than desireable mates. To some extent, there also may have been some trading for food or protection. The reason for mating could be any number of things. Its not like walking up to a bear and saying, "your fur is lovely, can I buy you a fish?" Humans will try to boink anything, just some will get the hell beat out of them, some will get a story to tell the grandkids, and the others will wind up as a hot steaming pile of bear shit.

Re:Wonder how they will work this out...

[ichthyoboy]

That depends: are the hybrid offspring viable and/or fertile? We see viable hybrid offspring regularly...heard of a mule? One of the rough metrics for determining species status (using the Biological Species Concept) is that separate species will not produce fertile hybrid offspring.

Re:Proclivities

[FlyingSquidStudios]

They were definitely all homos.


Homo Neanderthalenses that is.

Why wouldn't they? We sure would.

[Sarusa]

Have you been in a Wal-mart? People will hump anything with a hole. It seems to me that if you can show that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens/Erectus were in the same place at the same time that you'd need extraordinary proof that they didn't have sex.

Offspring's a much harder question.

Genesis 6

[Fished]

When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. (Genesis 6.1-4 NRSV)

I've always sort of nursed a theory... that maybe Adam and Eve were Homo Sapiens and the Nephilim were Neanderthals. Or something like that. The idea is that Eden was a separate creation from Earth, and that on earth evolution really DID take place... but that after the Fall god turned man out of Eden into the earth.

Absurd of course, and could never be proven. But amusing to speculate.

Let the flames begin!

Re:Genesis 6

[Entropius]

Cool story, bro.

And in other scientific news

[Vinegar Joe]

Scientists today announced recent evidence suggests beer was invented by Cro-magnon man.

Re:And in other scientific news

[Col Bat Guano]

...and champagne was invented by pro-magnum man.

Pics or it didn't happen

[PPH]

Cave drawings will do.

Re:Most likely

[The Archon V2.0]

I'm not condoning this, just pointing out the obvious.

Thanks for stressing you're anti-rape. With slashdotters, you can't be sure. So many of us spend so much time on the longboats, our long beards matted from all the clotted blood of our enemies. It's easy to forget that when you come home and hang up the horned helmet for a nice relaxing night of using the Core 2 Quad you got as danegeld, that 'no means no'.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Re:Proclivities

[ThatMegathronDude]

Its the beards.

New slashdot poll

[Locke2005]

How many people looked at the neanderthal photo attached to this article and thought to themselves, "Yeah, I'd hit that!"?

Re:Oeuf Corse !

[Locke2005]

In our defense, the dolphins themselves are pretty promiscuous! Dolphins and dogs both appear willing to hump animals outside their own species; I'm sure there are other examples.

Re:WELL

[cthulu_mt]

LIAR!!! This is slashdot!

Re:Wonder how they will work this out...

[Locke2005]

But if they had no viable offspring, then no Neanderthal traits would be passed on to Humans, and vice versa, so we wouldn't see any evidence of Neanderthal DNA in Humans or of Human DNA in Neanderthals. That they shared technology is pretty much a given.

What the troll did to the princess in his cave

[viking80]

You do not need any DNA analysis to figure that out. What do you think the troll did to the captured the princess, once he took her back to his mountain cave? And they did not call it the Stockholm syndrome if she ever was freed; it was called bergtatt (literally: taken into the mountain) or bewitched.

Unfortunately, the history is told by the winner; It would have been interesting to hear these fairytales as told by the Neanderthals.

sorry cannot resist

[Korbeau]

Your mother is so old that the Neanderthals had sex with her!

Re:We can finally explain wherefore Celtic people

[Pax681]

the Celts were a much more populous and civilized society than their English neighbors, who were still running around the woods and building log stockades whilst the Celts were building beautiful stone castles

INSIGHTFUL MY ACHING ASS!

speaking as a Scotsman i find this funny as hell. you see celts were not just Scotland ,Wales and Ireland........... they were pretty much ALL OVER EUROPE. Celts were a culture and not a race... there were Celts all over the place INCLUDING ENGLAND!!!! oh and Germany.. and Switzerland and France or and spain.....remember the OstroGoths?Visigoths?..erm.. celts..... the celts even sacked Rome...... this is where Milan gets it's name from....

The foundation of Milan is credited to two Celtic peoples, the Bituriges and the Aedui, having as their emblems a ram and a boar

yeah.. right next door to England isn't it? and as far as a plague.. well oe third of the roman empire was humped by the plague... however you will find that the SCots and Irisg celts by the VERY nature of them being OUTWITH the roman empire..remember the Scots kicked the crap out the Romans on more than one occassion. and the Irish were prtty much unscathed due to no real expiditionary force from the Romans altough thre was some trade(ie slaves) between the Romans and Irish .Decimation whilst having a roman root isn't even the right wird..lol decimation means 1 out of ten killed. it was , for exa,mple when a legion fucked up they got 1 out of every ten men and killed then as a lesson to the rest not to fuck up again. Or if a p[eople rebelled the same would happen to that population locally as a lesson to the rest. 1/3 != 1 out of ten.

there were walls built to seperate the Scots tribes from Roman britain.. thus the plague very much kinda skipped the Scots and Irish on that occassion.
i could go on and show you how amazingly wrong you are in yer wee statement but tbh i cannot bothered.

i mean did you really believe what you said or just enjoy making shit up?

Cave paintings or it didn't happen.

[karlwilson]

Cave paintings or it didn't happen.

Re:Cave paintings or it didn't happen.

[kheldan]

Cave paintings or it didn't happen.

Cave paintings with timestamp or it didn't happen.

ObFamilyGuy

[sharkey]

Karen: "Screw you, Gary!"
Gary: "Oh, yeah? Maybe if you did that more often, maybe I wouldn't need these paintings!"

Of course there is evidence

[cs668]

You've seen Gérard Depardieu haven't you?

Re:Isn't

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I don't know, but I have to say that the icon for this story probably represents the look our ancestors had whilst receiving some neanderthal loving.

Re:We can finally explain wherefore Celtic people

[gyrogeerloose]

Someone, I don't know who, once said that "if you took a Neanderthal, cleaned him up, dressed him in modern clothes and put him on a New York subway car, no one would look twice."

Someone else responded to that with "that says more about the New York subway system than it does about Neanderthals."

Re:Isn't

[damburger]

No. Neanderthals did have red hair, and did inhabit the same regions where modern ginger people come from - but it is already established that the gene which gives them red hair is completely different from the one that causes red hair in humans.

The above post is not at all offtopic, its a valid question.

Re:We can finally explain wherefore Celtic people

[relguj9]

the Celts were a much more populous and civilized society than their English neighbors, who were still running around the woods and building log stockades whilst the Celts were building beautiful stone castles

INSIGHTFUL MY ACHING ASS! speaking as a Scotsman i find this funny as hell. you see celts were not just Scotland ,Wales and Ireland........... they were pretty much ALL OVER EUROPE. Celts were a culture and not a race... there were Celts all over the place INCLUDING ENGLAND!!!! oh and Germany.. and Switzerland and France or and spain.....remember the OstroGoths?Visigoths?..erm.. celts..... the celts even sacked Rome...... this is where Milan gets it's name from....

The foundation of Milan is credited to two Celtic peoples, the Bituriges and the Aedui, having as their emblems a ram and a boar

yeah.. right next door to England isn't it? and as far as a plague.. well oe third of the roman empire was humped by the plague... however you will find that the SCots and Irisg celts by the VERY nature of them being OUTWITH the roman empire..remember the Scots kicked the crap out the Romans on more than one occassion. and the Irish were prtty much unscathed due to no real expiditionary force from the Romans altough thre was some trade(ie slaves) between the Romans and Irish .Decimation whilst having a roman root isn't even the right wird..lol decimation means 1 out of ten killed. it was , for exa,mple when a legion fucked up they got 1 out of every ten men and killed then as a lesson to the rest not to fuck up again. Or if a p[eople rebelled the same would happen to that population locally as a lesson to the rest. 1/3 != 1 out of ten. there were walls built to seperate the Scots tribes from Roman britain.. thus the plague very much kinda skipped the Scots and Irish on that occassion. i could go on and show you how amazingly wrong you are in yer wee statement but tbh i cannot bothered. i mean did you really believe what you said or just enjoy making shit up?

That was the most insightful, drunken, Scottish post ever.

Other skeletal features

[spineboy]

I'm an orthopaedic surgeon (fix bones, replace hips, etc) and the skeletal differences in the extremeties, and axial (central) skeleton are substantial. HUGE flaired rib cage - much more lung volume and abdominal protection. Hips much more of a varus angle than ours ( are closer to a right angle - most humans are around 135 deg), and also more offset in their hips. Broader pelvis -hell all the bones just appear "beefier" - I'm guessing these guys were strong as all hell. Even the spine seems re-inforced compared to modern humans, who appear much sleeker.

Neanderthal = power weight lifter.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens = long distance runner.

Re:Most likely

[bar-agent]

Roman Polanski tested that, and look where it got him.

Rich, famous, admired, and protected?