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

Someone needs to check.

[blair1q]

Someone needs to do a little digging to make sure this isn't just an elaborate piece of GEICO astroturfing.

Re:Someone needs to check.

[boristhespider]

Errr, more to the point, January called and it wants its (mildly but not excessively) controversial news back.

Re:Someone needs to check.

[blair1q]

I thought it was "homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis miscegenated and the latter genes still exist in humans" in January.

Now it's "if you aren't 100% African, you're part Neanderthal."

Re:Someone needs to check.

[boristhespider]

As far as I understood it, it was that the evidence suggested - to some degree of certainty - that the genes of all extra-African races were different from sub-Saharan African races to a level that agreed with Neanderthal sequences. Obviously the errors were large - and acknowledged in the studies - but so far as I understood the reasoning for the implications, Homo Sapiens was reputed to have interbred with Homo Neanderthalis at least in the Middle East at about the point that we left Africa, simply because all of us who aren't predominantly sub-Saharan African have the same gene sequence as some recently-sequence Neanderthal fossils.

So far as that goes, fair enough. I remember reading a lot of that kind of thing a good few months back. And a natural implication is that anyone who isn't sub-Sahran African probably has Neanderthal in them. (Entertainingly, of course, many sub-Saharans also will. This is due to humans, err, interacting constantly and repeatedly and the effects propogating through populations. But the studies took that kind of simple-minded thing into account, of course.)

Re:Someone needs to check.

[blind monkey 3]

Is it politically correct these days to use the phrase "Homo" in front of any words? Can't be to sure, you know. This also explains the urges I keep having to go club some animal to death and half cook it over an open fire. (Could also explain the tendency to howl at a full moon)

you'd prefer gay sapiens and gay neanderthalensis maybe?

Re:Someone needs to check.

[jonnythan]

What was that?

I'm sorry, I can't read when 6-digit UIDs post.

Re:Someone needs to check.

[rk]

Eh, sonny? Speak up! My hearing aid batteries have given up, and I need my grandson to take me to Walgreens on account of my rheumatiz actin' up.

Re:Someone needs to check.

[Sulphur]

So be part neanderthal or be black...
Idk... that's a tough call. But i think i'll take the option that doesn't get me pulled over by the cops as often.

Sir, you were Neandering in your lane.

--

DWN ; Driving While Neanderthal.

Re:Someone needs to check.

[Wyatt Earp]

Quiet down youngster.

Re:Someone needs to check.

[Scarletdown]

Just imagine all the Beavis and Butthead type huh-huh-huhs had this article been about Homo Erectus, and even more so had it been about Homo Erectus remains being found near Lake Titicaca, and somehow involving a big chunk of interplanetary material that got ejected to Earth from Uranus.

Re:Someone needs to check.

[arth1]

So, all that it really says is that at least one Neanderthal engaged in bestiality. Given the number of generations since then, it's not surprising that most of the world can trace one of the myriad of ancestries also to that incident.

What is surprising is that it hasn't spread back to Africa.

There could, perhaps, be a gene that suppresses that marker, e.g. by causing infertility when encountered, while at the same time increasing the chance of survival in Africa? Something like sickle cell anemia or lactose intolerance, which have beneficial effects in Africa but detrimental effects in colder climates? I have no idea, but it seems strange that it wouldn't spread back, given how man sows his oats pretty much anywhere there's a willing receptacle, and often where it's unwilling too.

In other words

[Scareduck]

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

Re:In other words

[mldi]

Additionally, that page tried claiming that scientists dated neanderthals "post-flood". So.... a few thousand years? Really? How can anybody take that seriously?

To GP: And if you're using a compilation of books written by man, whose compilation itself was chosen by man over a thousand years later... all of which was written from the perspectives of people from a very, very, very limited geographic region as a basis for these outlandish claims (including a global flood) then you're a bigger fool than you even know. Take it for what it is and leave the rest out.

Re:In other words

[JosKarith]

Sub humans have been created - we call them Creationists...

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

[Roachie]

Seems like there is a bunch of them, no?

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[Paracelcus]

"Inferior" Homo Neanderthalensis lived as a distinct group for half a million years, surviving the toughest conditions imaginable with very limited technology, I's say that the modern hiker, who dies of exposure/starvation in 40F weather within 200 yards of a road is inferior! Could you live a night wrapped in several animal hides, probably without a fire, in ice age weather -70F?

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Or maybe they were just completely assimilated

Yes. Many of them (Neanderthals) are in Congress, even as we speak.

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

[Bacon Bits]

Indeed, cross-breeding generally results in the deficits in each species diminishing and the strengths aggregating. It's a phenomenon known as heterosis or hybrid vigor. The explanation is simple: dominant genes tend to be those which benefit the species (natural selection will tend to eliminate dominant genes which retard the species). Mating with an organism that contains a vast number of completely different genes which gives you a whole new set of dominant genes. Gene's that you didn't have to mutate in your own ancestral lines It's a genetic gold mine.

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[ShakaUVM]

>>Neanderthals are extinct. They were evolution's losers. QED.

No.

The whole point of this article is that they're still around. And not only are they still around, but they are still around in all the countries that are currently "winning" the global game of Civilization

Since Neanderthals left Africa first, and are currently still around in the Civs that have been teching the fastest, one could make the argument that their genes are superior.

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[modmans2ndcoming]

There is plenty of evidence that we are cognitively superior to Neanderthal. Brain size is not equal to intelligence. the size of a brain is proportional to the physical size of an animal. What is related to intelligence is the density of the cerebral cortex. Since we can not measure the cerebral cortex of Neanderthal, we have to look at archaeological evidence for abstract thinking (culture, society, and technology). In all three cases, Neanderthal was pretty much static until they encountered modern humans. given these facts, there is sufficient evidence to conclude Neanderthal was not as bright as Homo sapiens.

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[Luckyo]

It is you who are missing the fact - we were found to contain some of their genes - this is not the same as being them. We lack many of their distinctive features, meaning that they have in fact lost evolutionary war and are extinct. We are still here.

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[bill_mcgonigle]

>>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?

Just look at their cave paintings - there were always quoting the last story and forgetting to see if their proper clipboard got pasted.

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[Draek]

The beauty of being an homo sapiens is that I don't need to.

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[bakes]

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

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[Luckyo]

Then you are a shark, as you share a whole lot of genes with one. Get a laser pointer and be awesome.

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[Luckyo]

Except that there is no firm evidence to suggest what you're saying. We just know that certain aspect of our genome is shared. In this regard, hte genome could have been shared by a vast array of means, from crossbreeding, which is being suggested in the OP, to the far more likely shared ancestry (which is not yet found and has been searched for for decades as of writing this).

If you claim that in spite of above, any species that shares genome that is present in any successful modern species, then by your rules, there simply are almost no failures. A vast majority of our gene pool is shared amongst mammals. A very large is shared across of all multi cellular species of the planet. This has to do with the fact that we're all amino-acid protein based life forms, and our basic cellular design is very similar across all species that utilize a burning process of O2 and glucose as primary means of energy generation.

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[ShakaUVM]

Certain things like mitochondria are very very successful. How could you argue otherwise?

But I'm going off the premise that Neanderthals did indeed crossbreed with our branch of the homo family. If their genes survived in this fashion, then they were indeed successful.

Re:Won't quiet the racists

[Luckyo]

To demonstrate the absurdity of your claim, let's turn it around:

If homo neanderthaliensis cross-bred with homo sapiens, wiped him out, and continued to be largely homo neanderthaliensis with no visible or dominant feature of homo sapiens, how could you call homo sapiens successful?

You could not, because it would be a failed branch of evolutionary tree that got assimilated and severed by an competitor without keeping any of the traits of the genus.

So that begs the question. Are neanderthals human?

[lazn]

So.. Just how "different" are/were they? It sounds to me like we are calling neanderthals non homosapiens when in reality they are no more different from us than say a tall blond Scandinavian is from a short Asian.. Or a chihuahua from a great dane.

are the neanderthal genes expressed?

[hxnwix]

The human genome contains all kinds of junk that isn't expressed, including code for various viruses. However, that does not make one a virus any more than it makes one a neanderthal.

Re:are the neanderthal genes expressed?

[hxnwix]

Sure. You know some people have out-sized protruding forehead? Yep, them's expressing it.

I asked a question about genetics and got a reply about phrenology. Welcome to slashdot...

Obvious implication:

[Hartree]

I think it's proof that most of us slashdot geeks are such social basket cases even our ancestors had to move to a foreign land and get a neanderthal to date them.

Those slashdotters who are from Africa get a free pass on this one.

more like we genocided them

[decora]

i have read some of the archaeology people's writings, and uhm, they have a nice euphemism. "outcompeted". they look at burial sites and so forth to chart the spread of the species.

and uhm. the neanderthals were mass slaughtered.

actually its pretty common in history, from the genetic records, to have waves of populations come in and slaughter the existing population, completely displacing it.

yay us.

Re:more like we genocided them

[FoolishOwl]

You missed the part where they've found evidence that most humans have Neanderthal genes.

I always wondered why the assumption was genocide, when human communities tend to favor marriage to members of adjacent groups, and by most accounts I've read, Neanderthals would have been almost indistinguishable from anatomically modern humans, anyway. It just always seemed to make the most sense that the Neanderthals would have simply been absorbed by the larger group.

Re:more like we genocided them

[modmans2ndcoming]

how would they be almost indistinguishable? They were more muscular, stockier, and had very prominent orbital ridges.

Re:more like we genocided them

[mswhippingboy]

waves of populations come in and slaughter the existing population, completely displacing it.

GP doesn't necessarily contradict this theory. It makes sense to me. They killed all the males and kept the females for pleasure, many of which resulted in offspring. These offspring came to dominate to the point that very few tribes existed that were not tribes descendants of this hybridization. Not too hard for me to believe.

Re:more like we genocided them

[mswhippingboy]

how would they be almost indistinguishable? They were more muscular, stockier, and had very prominent orbital ridges.

To this I reply "Richard Kiel".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Kiel_2.JPG

Case closed.

Re:more like we genocided them

[KillaBeave]

I'll see your Richard Keil and raise you a Ron Perlman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Perlman

Classic example of the "species problem"

[realxmp]

One of the problems here in saying whether Neanderthal's are a different species to Homo Sapiens is that the word species is poorly defined. It's actually been a problem since Darwin's day, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem gives an idea of how long we've been arguing this. Personally if I feel if they were routinely successfully breeding with homo sapiens then calling them a separate species may be a bit of a stretch.

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.

Not necessarily

[Michael Woodhams]

It could be a merger, it could be a little bit of gene flow followed by extinction. The data don't say.

A previous result suggested non-African humans have about 4% of their genome descended from Neandertals. For the sake of argument, I'll take that as a fact.

Merger scenario: a big wave of modern humans flow into Neandertal territory, outnumbering them by about 25 to one. They all form one big happy interbreeding population, soon forming a uniform gene pool which is about 4% Neandertal, reflecting the original population proportion, and then go on to colonize the rest of the planet.

Genocide/extinction scenario: Big bad Modern hunts down and kills the poor Neandertals, raping the women as they go. Some of the half-breeds integrate into the Modern population and leave descendants, but the purebred Neandertals all die on the end of a spear. Despite a Modern population rather smaller than the Neandertal population, in the end we have only Moderns left with only 4% of the genes coming from the once more populous Neandertal, and the non-meek inherit the earth.

I suppose we could even go for:
Neandertal conquest scenario: Once upon a time there was a large population of peaceful Moderns. The nasty Neandertals fell upon them like a wolf upon the fold, killed all the men and kept the women for their pleasure. The resulting society had a small number of master race Neandertals ruling the Modern peons. But due to the Modern women being hotter than the Neandertals*, the Neandertal bloodline was quickly diluted until they were indistinguishable from the slaves. It is because we lack our Master Race rulers that we're in such a mess today.
* Ask anyone you know, they'll agree on this. That proves it!

Note that I've presented exaggerated scenarios for dramatic effect - do not assume they represent my personal opinions. As presented, my genocide scenario does not explain why we see no Neandertal mitochondrial DNA in present populations, but it could be tweaked to account for that.

Loose Lucy

[retroworks]

I read on a cave wall somewhere that it was one particular, and really hot, Neanderthal chick, "Loose Lucy", who the Neanderthal gene dates back to. Her kids really got around.