Neanderthal Genes Found In All Non-African Populations

Med-trump writes "Neanderthals, whose ancestors left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago, evolved in what is now mainly France, Spain, Germany and Russia, and are thought to have lived until about 30,000 years ago. Now scientists have identified a piece of Neanderthal DNA (called a haplotype) in the human X chromosome and conclude that this haplotype is present because of mating between our ancestors and Neanderthals. The study was published in the latest issue of the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution."

Comments

In other words

[Scareduck]

The Neanderthals didn't become extinct so much as they merged with H. sapiens.

Won't quiet the racists

[TWX]

Somehow I doubt that telling those white supremacists that they're the ones descended from Neanderthals and that the Africans are the only group lacking Neanderthal DNA would do anything to change their perspectives.

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[ShakaUVM]

>>explain to me why we need that much overlap? i understand the different roles that each branch fills.. but there is zero reason why each of them can't use the same data center.

How do you know Neanderthals were genetically inferior?

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[Canazza]

you *have* watched Olympic track and field right?

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[Mr. Slippery]

Maybe because there's not too many of them around anymore.

You're missing the point, Mac. Most of the human race is partly of Neanderthal stock. Ipso facto, there's plenty of us still around.

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[AK Marc]

That's irrelevant. "Genetically inferior" has no meaning. Are ants inferior? If so, why are there so many of them and so few of us? Instead, we assert our current existence to be the pinnacle, and rate other creatures on a scale of how close they are to us. Not to mention that there are other factors that could have resulted in one species thriving while the other went extinct that was irrelevant to "genetic superiority" and instead adaptability or disease resistance or such. Perhaps the "genetically inferior" were less aggressive, so they were killed off, despite the fact they were smarter and stronger or whatever trait you associate with "genetic superiority."

Instead of proclaiming who is better or worse with subjective labels, why not define the underlaying definitions in your assumptions and address those specifically?

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[bakes]

Yes, and I've watched the Olympic swimming too.

Re:Classic example of the "species problem"

[MightyMartian]

It's not poorly defined so much as there's no single definition that will do. The definitions provided are generalized by the very nature of the species concept itself. As with the definition of life itself, there's no black and white, but continuums. Take a look at ring species for the root of the problem with eukaryotic organisms. It gets even more complicated when you deal with procaryotes. It gets just as bad when you deal with some bizarre reproductive strategies like polyploidism in plants which can produce a new species in a single generation.