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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Carewolf]

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

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.

Of course they did

[turing_m]

Developers, developers, developers...

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?

[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?

[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 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.

Beer!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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

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.

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.

And in other scientific news

[Vinegar Joe]

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

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.)

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!"?

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.

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: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.

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: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?