Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Neanderthal Sex Boosted Immunity In Modern Humans

Posted by timothy on from the check-out-greg-bear's-darwin's-radio dept.

NotSanguine writes "Sexual relations between ancient humans and their evolutionary cousins were critical for our modern immune systems, researchers report (paper itself is subscription only) in the journal Science. Mating with Neanderthals and another ancient group called Denisovans introduced genes that help us cope with viruses to this day, they conclude."

190 comments

  1. Old news? by grub · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sure this knowledge was a big influence on who Mrs. Ballmer chose as a mate.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Old news? by aliquis · · Score: 2

      If it boost the amount of developers I'm all for it.

    2. Re:Old news? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 0

      Yes. Old news. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    3. Re:Old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Must be why white girls give it for nig-nogs. That and trying to upset mommy and daddy, knowing there is a 8-inch uncut nigger cock pumping their precious little angle's pussy full of black sperm.

    4. Re:Old news? by mangu · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this knowledge was a big influence on who Mrs. Ballmer chose as a mate.

      Are you saying that his mate was trying to boost his/her immune system?

    5. Re:Old news? by grub · · Score: 1

      No, she was thinking of potential offspring.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    6. Re:Old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, she was thinking of potential offspring.

      she's probably a typical gold-digger type of woman. the kind most want to be tho some are fat. the fatties who could not become gold diggers hate themselves even more for that and find refuge in a big greasy bucket of comfort food.

      seriously. check the marriage statistics yourself before you dismiss me as a troll. even women who are millionaires want to marry men who are multi-millionaires. from seeing much of the world i can say that the abusive assholes who have lots of money are far more likely to find a loving wife than the middle-class guys who have character and kindness and enjoy romance. funny cause those are the things women say they want. hilarious the way they say one thing then go for another isn't it?

      saying most women are gold diggers or engage in a form of legalized prostitution is not a slur or an insult. it's a realistic assessment of how they behave and how to most simply explain it per occam's razor. the essential nature of most women is that of a whore. the difference between the regular average woman and the street prostitute is that one is honest about the nature of the transaction and tries to maximize the number of cliens, while the other is deluded to the point where she'd get highly offended if you point out what her tendencies and preferences say about her and tries to monopolize a single client.

      women wonder why they're not taken more seriously especially in business. it's because they need to learn to be honest with themselves.

    7. Re:Old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds? Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill Well, I suppose we would have to discuss terms, of course Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds? Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?! Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

    8. Re:Old news? by staalmannen · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this knowledge was a big influence on who Mrs. Ballmer chose as a mate.

      I thought that was the 800 pound Gorilla? Clear proof that hominids are sexually compatible ;)

    9. Re:Old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      saying most women are gold diggers or engage in a form of legalized prostitution is not a slur or an insult. it's a realistic assessment of how they behave and how to most simply explain it per occam's razor.

      Unless, of course, you go and actually talk to some women. Prostitution is a conscious and deliberate exchange of sex for money and not (generally) the result of a woman's sexual drive. Some women do, of course, do this in the marriage market. Some do not consider money much at all (really, I've met some). However, most go for money because they find it sexy. Just as men go chasing after bitchy unpleasant and difficult women who happen to have, say, large breasts. Both are a result of sexuality, not some sort of deal making. However, men don't typically have any equivalent sexual feeling and so ascribe this behaviour to manipulation. Meanwhile the less observant women see men being very driven by appearance, make the same mistake and accuse us of being superficial.

    10. Re:Old news? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      It also accounts for the robust constitution of Trailerparcus Bubbacus to this day.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    11. Re:Old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But us guys ARE superficial (most of us anyway).

      And I don't think we guys lie that much and say we're after women for their brains, character etc ;).

      Whereas women tend to lie more about stuff like that.

    12. Re:Old news? by xelah · · Score: 1

      I mean that women accuse men of being more superficial than women. We're as superficial as women are (IMO, I have no references to cite here and it's rather subjective anyway). However, I think we define superficiality in gender specific ways. Women spread their superficiality across assessments wealth, status, power, ability to dominate others (via personality) and looks whilst men concentrate most of it on looks. Then women use a definition of superficiality which fits male superficiality better than their own.

      As far as looking for women with brains or a personality we like is concerned, I'd make a distinction between being sexually appealing and being appealing as a partner.

      Also, I remember an OKCupid survey which found that women have a much higher barrier for men's physical attractiveness than men do for women's. Men spread their assessment of women evenly with most in the middle and equal numbers at the top and bottom of the scale. Women put most men in the bottom half.

  2. Hey Babe by Haedrian · · Score: 2

    Want a better immune system for your kiddies?

    Call me.

    1. Re:Hey Babe by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      Want a better immune system for your kiddies? Call me.

      Unlikely... she knows that if you were really Neanderthal, you'd probably be using the phone to bash someone's head in, and you wouldn't even have a clue about the Internet. :-)

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    2. Re:Hey Babe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want a better immune system for your kiddies? Call me.

      Unlikely... she knows that if you were really Neanderthal, you'd probably be using the phone to bash someone's head in, and you wouldn't even have a clue about the Internet. :-)

      LOL you really believe women actually put any rational thought into their choice of mate. Or that they would use the knowledge they have about men to draw conclusions about whether they should be with one particular man via some kind of deductive process. Hahahaha that's cute. You do know that what Mommy told you about women is idealistic fairy-tale crap, right? She probably told you women like nice guys and all sorts of other bullshit that just doesn't describe reality. don't get me wrong, she meant well, it's just that is how she sees herself no matter how much the facts contradict it so you understand she cannot help but tell you lies.

      women just go with whatever irrational feelings they have at that moment. if their irrational feelings change they have no qualms about stringing the poor guy along until they find something more to their liking. for a group who loves to talk about the importance of feelings they are the most ruthless creatures imaginable. they have no sense of justice and the ends always justify the means, oh, unless someone manipulates THEM, then that's just terrible.

    3. Re:Hey Babe by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      LOL

      Well, we've established that you're a mouth breather anyway.

      you really believe [etc]

      Er, no. Exactly how did my jokingly observing that a neanderthals probable inability to use a phone is an obvious giveaway in the OP's chat-up line make you think that I did?

      Let me guess- you discovered this "truth" recently and you wanted the opportunity to bolster your puffed-up nerd ego and feel superior by giving a "Santa Claus doesn't exist" lecture to some stereotypical woman-ignorant Slashdot geek. Sorry to spoil your fun, but while I may be a geek, I've seen this said countless times before- you're very, *very* far from the first person to point all this out. This is old news.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    4. Re:Hey Babe by guruevi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or you'd be really mad about the Geico commercials.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:Hey Babe by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Joking, but Neanderthals had larger brains than modern humans, actually.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    6. Re:Hey Babe by retchdog · · Score: 1

      which means very little in and of itself.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    7. Re:Hey Babe by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      True, it's mostly due to increased bulk- but if a neanderthal were to exist today, he or she probably wouldn't be any less intelligent than an average person. Probably a bit more due to evolutionary pressures in the ice age.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    8. Re:Hey Babe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlikely... she knows that if you were really Neanderthal, you'd probably be using the phone to bash someone's head in, and you wouldn't even have a clue about the Internet. :-)

      You're more likely to have your head bashed in by a human than a Neanderthal. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) had on average a larger brain size than Homo sapiens sapiens (Humans) and were physically shorter, which is highly correlated with intelligence when the brain to body ratio is higher. They probably died out due to a combination of slow reproduction, outbreeding with humans, and their more pacifistic nature (they cooked plant material, had burial practices and music long before humanity is known to have had them).

      Note that this report implies that Europeans and Asians have better immune systems than Africans as Africans have no Neanderthal DNA. I'm speculating but the presence of CCR5-32 that gives many Europeans resistance (or even immunity) to HIV, bubonic plague, smallpox and the West Nile virus may be a leftover from the Neanderthals as well.

    9. Re:Hey Babe by froggymana · · Score: 2

      Joking, but Neanderthals had larger brains than modern humans, actually.

      And an IBM 700 mainframe is larger than a modern i7 desktop. What's your point?

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    10. Re:Hey Babe by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      *facepalm*

      My point is that they'd most likely be about as intelligent as an average human.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    11. Re:Hey Babe by Kittenman · · Score: 1
      Tut tut. Nonsense. Intelligence isn't linked to brain size. If it was we'd all be roughly equally smart. Not the case. I think there's been weights and measures done of dead peoples' brains (rather than live peoples' ones...) and the size varied up and down, not consistently with the IQ or whatever measure you choose.

      Similar to another part of (male) anatomy, it's not size of your hook, it's what you do with it.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  3. PICTURES? by eexaa · · Score: 1

    we are on internet, aren't we?

    1. Re:PICTURES? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name of the jpeg file should tell you what there is but be careful, if you get caught looking at that picture...

      http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs/human-neanderthal-mating.jpeg

    2. Re:PICTURES? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Name of the jpeg file should tell you what there is but be careful, if you get caught looking at that picture...

      http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs/human-neanderthal-mating.jpeg

      that picture is obviously a phoney. not even slightly realistic. it suggests a white man and a primitive woman. this is backwards.

      inter-racial relationships are almost always a white woman and a black man.

      i don't think that says much about white women. some people don't want to date members of their own race for whatever reason, or maybe they find an exceptionally great person of another race. but it does say a lot about how horrifyingly bitchy and high-strung and militaristic most black women are.

      you can make two observations here. 1. black men would rather have even a fat ugly white woman than be with their own women. 2. you almost never see a white man with a black woman unless he's really desperate or she's really exceptional. the bitchy "i am always in boot camp, i am never satisfied, i must always complain, i have unrealistically high self-esteem to the point of narcissim" attitude most black women cultivate doesn't appeal to any man of any color.

      i don't know why black women are this way while most black men are down-to-earth and easygoing. the only explanation i can think of is that most black mothers are single mothers so they feel a need to be both mother and father. they don't do a very good job of taking on masculine characteristics because no woman really understands what it takes to be a man. the best they can do is be a real bitch and think this makes them a respectable head of household. they think that is the same as having strength of character. most women make that mistake. in business you constantly see women who think they have to be a big bitch or else no one will take them seriously. it is sort of like a guy with a tiny penis who drives the biggest truck he can afford and at least as pathetic.

  4. Woohoo, thank you neanderthals! by youn · · Score: 1

    those DNA strands are awesome!

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
  5. The good old days of evolution... by V!NCENT · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    That would explain why female humans prefer male humans (when not on the pill) with totaly different DNA, based on smell.

    It's obvious that mating with different DNA creates much more different combinations and thus a bigger possibility for survival.

    It's something that we're totaly screwing up right now, by trying to treat all possible diseases and letting all crap DNA survive, weakening our chanses of survival. It's like not willing to sacrivise one baby for a thousand.

    For example anti-biotics; it's subscribed to everything and everyone right now, meaning that if deadly stuff mutates to be able to resist the two common anti-biotics then we're absolutely screwed.

    Devolution if you will...

    --
    Here be signatures
    1. Re:The good old days of evolution... by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's one way to bring competition back: allow polygamy.

      Let the best, brightest, fittest mate with as many as possible and have their spouses/kids be under the same legal protection monogamous marriages are right now.

      With most mammals, it's what nature does anyway.

    2. Re:The good old days of evolution... by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 2

      It's something that we're totaly screwing up right now, by trying to treat all possible diseases and letting all crap DNA survive, weakening our chanses of survival

      ...

      Devolution if you will...

      Adolf, is that you?

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
    3. Re:The good old days of evolution... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      ummm.... the point of Evolution is to strengthen a genome against the environment.... It is completely relative. There is no objective better in Evolution, given that, modern norms and medicine are not hurting us given the environment we live in... in fact, they strengthen us.

    4. Re:The good old days of evolution... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      shoot... our closest relative.. the Bonobo, is hedonistic.

    5. Re:The good old days of evolution... by V!NCENT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You do realise that being the fittest (read: more succesful) in our current society, means being a total asshole with shitloads of money to pay for every single need?

      There have been some tests that show that the happiest (non-suicidal people) are the people who arent stupid (120).

      So that leaves us with a 110 IQ, rich asshole to mate with everyone.

      That doesn't sound so nice to me.

      --
      Here be signatures
    6. Re:The good old days of evolution... by 0123456 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Adolf, is that you?

      Hitler was only doing what the 'intelligentsia' on the left had been recommending for decades beforehand. Many of them were in favor of murdering those who had 'crap DNA'.

    7. Re:The good old days of evolution... by V!NCENT · · Score: 2

      And thank you Slashcode for leaving out some of my post:

      Not stupid (above 100 IQ), but also not too brilliant to figure out everything sucks (above 120 IQ), resulting in 110 IQ.

      --
      Here be signatures
    8. Re:The good old days of evolution... by chill · · Score: 1

      Marriage and procreation are two different things. Watch an episode of Jenny Jones, Montel Williams or Jerry Springer for details.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    9. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: -1

      Ideally the rich man's women would mate with other men (mostly African males who have many dissimilar genes but desireable physical features like larger penises and skeletal musculature), then use the cuckolded rich husband's resources to raise the babies. The babies would have a genetic advantage, but would also have the environmental advantage of the best private schools and other nurture. Sure beats dying premature deaths in inner-city ghettos.

      A note on polygamy - If it is legal for a man to have multiple wives, it should also be legal for women to have multiple husbands. I for one would gladly be one of a rich older woman's boy toys in exchange for an allowance, copious amounts of pre or post-menopausal sex, and a nice place to live.

    10. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Evolution has no point! It is a response to immediate environment, not a "step forward" on some "upward path." Someone would have had to lay out that upward path. What traits survive best in in one environment may be exactly what will do much more poorly in the next succeeding environment. That is what makes devolution is a meaningless term. There is no unwinding of the clock.

      Unless, of course, you think there is one or more gods who nudge "life as we know it" onward and upward to some "higher plane."

    11. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget going to great lengths to let infertile couples reproduce.

    12. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      max(IQ1,IQ2) / 60 = max number of kids allowed, rounded down... and perfect way to reduce the population and idiots in the world....

    13. Re:The good old days of evolution... by pakar · · Score: 1

      eh??... watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ ...

    14. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Every black run society/city/country usually goes straight to shit.

    15. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ and you might change you mind...

    16. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah, the Republican credo: Tell no SMALL lies. Hitler and his "intelligentsia" were conservatives. You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

    17. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's due to cultural issues, not genetic.

    18. Re:The good old days of evolution... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      You probably think Quest for Fire is a documentary, too.

    19. Re:The good old days of evolution... by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now would that be a society based upon psychopathic greed or intellectual prowess or humanitarianism or athletic ability or to stupid to plan ahead and use contraceptives.

      Just want to clarify the basis of selection and not even look to touch on the issue of which is better for human society a matriarchy or a patriarchy. Just that at the moment it is fairly clear that majority polygamy based societies seem to be pretty unstable, treat the plural members of that relationship more like chattel, child abuse seems to be a national pass time and fairly backward.

      Perhaps someone needs to explain the fundamental difference between humans 'a social species' and say lizards. It is not competition within human society, it is competition of the species who by collective and social effort establish species competitiveness. In fact it is very likely that to promote psychotic, lizard like, competition within the human species would break down human society and thus leave humanity vulnerable to direct physical competition with the rest of the biosphere (a guaranteed physical loser).

      In human society it is basically insane to think of the rest of human society as the competitor and as something to be preyed upon, exploited and competed with. This is regardless of the last thirty years mass media messages that psychopathy and narcissism are desirable states of a mass consumption humanity (selfishness and forcing ones ego upon others).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    20. Re:The good old days of evolution... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      Evolution is logic; that which dies, dies. That which survives can replicate.

      Today, we let everyone replicate. If we could, we would let seemingly uncontrollable child cancer genomes replicate if we had the cure for it.

      Imagine that there is some kind of natural disaster and everyone had child cancer?! "Oops, sorry sir but the power to the child cancer pill factory is torn appart due to some flood".

      Yeah...

      --
      Here be signatures
    21. Re:The good old days of evolution... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      You're so stupid that you asociate Jews with a type of DNA?

      --
      Here be signatures
    22. Re:The good old days of evolution... by 0123456 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ah, the Republican credo: Tell no SMALL lies.

      No, that's the left. Hence your attempt to claim that Hitler was right-wing, and deny that the 'progressives' were firm believers in eugenics and the murder of 'undesirables' before Hitler's attempt to put that into practice made them embarrassed to talk about such things in public.

      They still, of course, believe it in private; just look at the 'Greens' wank fantasies about eliminating billions of people so they can live 'naturally'.

    23. Re:The good old days of evolution... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      The largest society that non-neanderthal DNA has produced without major intervention from neanderthal infused cultures didn't even reach Aztec complexity even though population densities have been large enough quite often. It is quite probable there is a genetic component that influences social interaction.

    24. Re:The good old days of evolution... by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      Are you so stupid you believe there are "types" of DNA?

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
    25. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polygamy is for child molesters and anarchists. People like you have no place in the modern world. If you want to live like an animal, stay away from society.

    26. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adolf, is that you?

      Ding-ding-ding! Godwin's law.

    27. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we already have the technology to fix these characteristics in an inheritable manner, if you are prepared to use IVF, it is just that human eggs and early stage embryos are harder to work with than most and even if they were not they are just too risky for current use. Given even a single generation this will be fixable, and it will take several to be a real problem.

    28. Re:The good old days of evolution... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      Are you so stupid you believe there are "types" of DNA?

      You should have read my sig, but because you're appearantly too stupid, I'll make an exception for you, below:
      From the fscking dictionary:

      type
      a number of things or persons sharing a particular characteristic, or set of characteristics, that causes them to be regarded as a group, more or less precisely defined or designated; class; category: a criminal of the most vicious type.

      Now, you may not know it, but DNA can carry various sequences of characteristics we call genes:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene

      So yes, I actually believe is have the type of DNA that made me a type (race in biology) of homo sapien.

      To further proof that this term is actually used without dictionary-whoring:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling
      It appears that almost everyone has a different DNA type. Sorted by various gene, this can be grouped based on lenght, skin pigment, lenght, type of hair and shape of eye sockets and lip size. Total shocker, isn't it? I know...

      --
      Here be signatures
    29. Re:The good old days of evolution... by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      We as technological humans are past the state of natural biological evolution so you don't have to worry about "crap DNA" polluting the human gene pool. Human technological evolution is now faster than human natural biological evolution by orders of magnitude and will determine the future path of humanity. Many people with genetic problems which would have doomed them for most of human history are great contributors to human society now.

    30. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter. Because people with so-called "weak" DNA are enabled to survive in the environment, it is no longer a disadvantage.

      Now if (as the Christians hope) so nasty event happens to the world, and all our science and technologies disappear, the genes that enable us to survive on little food and fight diseases will be beneficial, and some of those "weak" genes you talk about might die off.

      Remember there is no such thing as an inherently good or bad gene. I had myself tested on 23andMe and found out I carry the cystic fibrosis gene. At the moment this is a bad thing, it means that picking a white partner at random I have a 1 in 100-120 chance of our child having CF (which is not a nice thing to have). But the reason this gene is so prevalent (1 in 25-30 white people carry it) is because having just one copy of the gene gives some resistance to some of the diarrhoeal illnesses that plagued the early cities of Europe.

      You might say it would be good to eliminate this gene. And if I could remove it from myself I would. But remember if there ever is a situation where humanity is surrounded again in filthy and faeces, the gene might come to good use.

    31. Re:The good old days of evolution... by metlin · · Score: 2

      Ha! I remember a quote from Dune, where Frank Herbert states that the biggest competitor in any environment is a member of your own species. Think about it -- you're after the same resources, you've the same basic needs, and often, your survival could be at the expense of another.

      Sure, it's easy not to think about that in a society that's rich and abundant with resources. But in a resource-strapped society? All bets are out the window. If you look at human history, you'll see that conflicts have happened at least as often as cooperation. Why do you think our history is plagued with warfare?

      And even today, look at the less developed regions of the world. Do you think the people are fighting over pieces of land with oil and diamonds for no apparent reason?

      The whole concept of the human society being one big and happy family is great to think about when the wants are few and the needs available plenty. Wait and watch once things start getting scarce (and it will happen, with our population), and it will be a whole different story. And it is far from a modern concept -- while social darwinism as it is espoused by popular media and our corporations may be absolute rubbish, the idea that human societies are all somehow benign entities is sheer nonsense. The only reason we cooperate is because it's in our favor. If not, all bets are out the window.

    32. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How the fuck is this pack of outright LIES "informative"? Hitler was a left-wing progressive? Greens want to kill billions so they can live naturally? Make some more shit up dude.

    33. Re:The good old days of evolution... by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, Hitler and his cronies were stupid for that. Others will make other stupid and conveniently self-serving decisions about what constitutes inferior DNA. That's why it's best not to engage in eugenics programs.

    34. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Which society are you speaking of?

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    35. Re:The good old days of evolution... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      Correlation is not causation. People need geological advantages. The places that weren't good enough to build proper societies were the places where the black people lived.

      Energy seems to spark propper societies. For example the Egyption society erupted from flowing water and fish. But what do you do when you live somewhere in the middle of Africa? You spend the entire day walking for food. You're too bored so what do you do? You spend the remaining day fucking. Fucking means spreading HIV. So then you lost all hope.

      But then what? Some people from all over the world start claiming you land, but if you're lucky enough you get to be transported as a slave to America and still don't get enough respect to be hired. So you have no money, no education.

      But sure it must be a black gene or something....

      --
      Here be signatures
    36. Re:The good old days of evolution... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      I surely don't hope the fear for this kinda stuff wears of like all new unknows stuff wears of. Before you know it you have to have ideal kids that are all almost genetically the same. Then you get the same weaknesses.

      You strip difference out of the equation and your human defense goes down still.

      But using this genetic stuff to entirely strip away disease is good. You just have to make sure you can replace the rock-solid system with your inteligence. It could be a bumpy ride and a silent killer if you try to make everything perfect...

      --
      Here be signatures
    37. Re:The good old days of evolution... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      We could state that it's for stripping away diseases. If done correctly, like with medicine testing and aproval regulations, but for gene removal/altering, it could be done. But with great power comes great responsability; you have to do it right or you will suffer the consiquences.

      But then again we also feared for all out nuclear war and it never happened, even though we have enough nukes and countries to blow the moon to shreds...

      --
      Here be signatures
    38. Re:The good old days of evolution... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      I see that no matter how obvious you are still blind, those places where "people are fighting over pieces of land with oil and diamonds", how competitive are those societies. Can they compete against societies where people work together democratically. You still fail to grasp the basic understanding that human societies that work together are more competitive than those that tear themselves apart, the kind of thinking you would expect from a psychopath or a narcissist, they honestly are incapable of viewing themselves as part of humanity, a genetic defect and of course the greater the percentage with the defect the more self destructive the human society it produces.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    39. Re:The good old days of evolution... by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      Ah! Semantic fetishists are always fun. I can play too!

      Basically, you're making the point that anything that can be described in terms of characteristics, can be typified. Not a total shocker when I put it in these terms, is it?

      Following that perfectly valid train of thought, I'm pretty much sure that a certain ethnic group (lets call this group "the jews"), can be associated with a "type of DNA". For instance, nobody would say that black people don't share some genetic trait. An ethnic group, such as the Jews, is likely to interbreed. Sharing the religion is a very strong factor when selecting mates in some circles; in particular among orthodox Jews, for instance. Interbreeding is famously know for reinforcing genetic traits (and for its broad use in low-budget porn, but I digress...). Thus, even when I never even remotely said so, using your own definition of "types of DNA", we could very much say that Jews can be associated with certain "types of DNA".

      You see what I did there, didn't you?

      But perhaps you didn't mean that, right? Perhaps you meant that religious beliefs do not come from endogenous characteristics. I agree, and never said otherwise. Then again, you weren't trying to correct me, or make an argument; you were trying to be an smart-ass, insulting me and making a fuss after I made a joke. Well, congratulations, Mister Troll: I took your bait. Now you can go on jerking off to your image in the mirror. Feel free to call me stupid all your little ego desires.

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
    40. Re:The good old days of evolution... by sjames · · Score: 1

      So as long as we restrict things to, for example, the feeble minded it'll all be OK?

      We have already managed to prove several times that eugenics programs will tend to suffer "mission creep" with terrible ethical consequences.

    41. Re:The good old days of evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too many don't understand Godwin's law. Having been the first to invoke Hitler doesn't make you wrong. It's just a general observation that, given enough time, every conversation will eventually result is someone relating something to Hitler.

      This particular invocation was both accurate and relevant. It warns that eugenics is a slippery slope. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out when some fucking retard suggests it's a good idea.

    42. Re:The good old days of evolution... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      This is the first time that I will say on Slashdot: I wish I had modpoints. Mentioning that a human is *not* just a zoological but also a social species, and the warning about rampant danger of psychopathy in recent years make it the best post, IMHO.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    43. Re:The good old days of evolution... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Pedantic much? I said essentially the same damn thing, except I was talking in the end results of a pointless process.

    44. Re:The good old days of evolution... by xelah · · Score: 2

      There's one way to bring competition back: allow polygamy.

      Especially in the absence of polyandry there will be considerable competition anyway in parts of China and India, thanks to their sex ratios.

      Polygamy has some serious problems when it comes to human welfare. It tends to lead to a lot of violence and criminality - and, of course, to huge sacrifices of male welfare in order to be the wealthiest or most successful mate. Given that human welfare is the goal it doesn't seem very appealing.

    45. Re:The good old days of evolution... by metlin · · Score: 2

      You're missing my point. I am not discounting that cooperation is infinitely preferable to conflict. However, to ignore the fact that a fellow human being (or a society) is a competitor to the same resource is ingenuous at best.

      One can cooperate while being fully cognizant of the fact that when it comes to resource scarcity, there could be a conflict for a limited resource.

    46. Re:The good old days of evolution... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Imagine that there was some kind of natural disaster like a disease that killed everyone that didn't have the genes for child cancer?

      That's what has happened with other diseases.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    47. Re:The good old days of evolution... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Now if (as the Christians hope) so nasty event happens to the world, and all our science and technologies disappear,

      Stop confusing American Fundamentalism with Christianity. They are alike in in the same way that Christianity and Judaism are alike in that they share a common heritage. The vast majority of Christians are sane and do not want the world to end, and see no conflict between science and their religion.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    48. Re:The good old days of evolution... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Explain the competitive outcome of a suicide bomber, not the bomber but the victims. Explain the competitive outcome of a lethal home invasion. Explain the competitive outcome of a pandemic the kills across all social strata and individual capability. How about a lethal mugging, a plane flying into a building, a large bomb placed in a multi story structure, a bridge collapse, a toxic polluted environment, an industrial disaster, all of these take victims at random and are the true signs of a collapsing society.

      The reality is, in a collapsing society, those that cooperate and work together the most, survive in the greatest numbers, working together to eliminate or exiling those lizard eat lizard types (the individuals who work best together eliminate those who only care about themselves regardless of how strong or smart they are).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    49. Re:The good old days of evolution... by metlin · · Score: 1

      Are you being dense on purpose? Suicide bombers are the exception, not the norm. Even so, they are desperate attempts to undermine the opposition at whatever cost, even the ultimate personal harm to self.

      Your arguments are wonderful in a society of abundance, but fail miserable when resource scarcity can be a reality. That is basic economics.

    50. Re:The good old days of evolution... by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Fascism = Right Wing. Sorry to burst your bubble.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    51. Re:The good old days of evolution... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You absolutely fail to grasp the idea that co=operation is an ability that evolves based upon autonomic empathic response. People do not co-operate because it is a good idea, real humans co-operate based upon genetics, from primitive to modern societies, that atomic empathic response drives co-operation. The sharing of mutual goals to achieve shared emotional results. I am not surprised you don't get it at all, it's genetic, you might see it written on paper or a computer screen but you can never understand it. The modern terrorist suicide bomber is unique, whoops oh wait, the kamikaze, Hashishin and even spartans are all the same fight to death and killing any who get in their way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombers.

      You of course are incredibly narrow minded, limit your reading and never look beyond your limited range of mass media fed assumptions.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    52. Re:The good old days of evolution... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      We should not alter DNA after birth, but if you're married to someone and both your RNA will highly likely result in realy problematic DNA for your child, you could opt for lab altering if you realy want a child together, instead of adoption.

      This must be tight to some realy, realy strict regulation under which no mission creep could possibly happen to an organisation. One of the items in the regulation must be growing a test-DNA sample in a lab (sounds crazy) to the point where it can be determined wether the DNA will result in a healthy child. Then proceed with real pregnancy. There should also be a realy strictly specification for problematic deceases, like only inheritable decauses and later on maybe mental pain (girls baldness at teen age or something).

      Please don't give me that "OMG life must not be killed crap", because without a working, self-aware brain, there is not life (except in plant form).

      --
      Here be signatures
  6. Mating with Neanderthals also provides... by adosch · · Score: 1

    1) Very good Saturday night entertainment. Not sure what I'd do without "Stupidest Criminals 3"...

    2) Very good opportunities to take home a hot chick at the bar. Let all the idiots use the nauseating "Hey Babe, lets better our future children's immune systems.." pickup line and better your opportunities to take home that hot chick at the bar

  7. Many affects on modern life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sexual relations between ancient humans and their evolutionary cousins were critical for our modern immune systems"

    It also lead to the creation of soccer hooligans and red necks.

    1. Re:Many affects on modern life by c0lo · · Score: 1

      "Sexual relations between ancient humans and their evolutionary cousins were critical for our modern immune systems"

      It also lead to the creation of soccer hooligans and red necks.

      Look at the bright side, please: the soccer hooligans and red necks have better chances to survive viral infections. ;)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  8. Mate Selection by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

    In high school and college, the women who slept with all the guys who _looked_ like Neanderthals were the ones most likely to have disease. I always thought they were slutty, but apparently it was some sort of inborn behaviour to improve our resistance as a race.

    1. Re:Mate Selection by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      In high school and college, the women who slept with all the guys who _looked_ like Neanderthals were the ones most likely to have disease.

      In some cases though, it worked out.

      I never understood why my wife ever willingly married me. Our beautiful daughter, who has a very robust immune system, appears to embody the explanation. That and my indisputable oily Guinea charm. Think Jersey Shore's "The Situation" with a PhD in literary theory.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Mate Selection by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      I never understood why my wife ever willingly married me. Our beautiful daughter, who has a very robust immune system, appears to embody the explanation. That and my indisputable oily Guinea charm.

      Perhaps she found your "Guinea charm" to be cute?

      Either that or she was impressed by your life savings of £1.05?

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    3. Re:Mate Selection by couchslug · · Score: 0

      Never discount Indisputable Oily Guinea Charm. Chicks dig that in preference to pasty variations of white guy, IMO based on the inborn white chick desire to fuck niggers (who in Northern vernacular were referred to as, no lie, "Swamp Guineas").

      Hey, I didn't write the rules, I just play the game. Bergen County represent!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  9. In the style of Ancient Aliens... by Nyder · · Score: 1

    Way back when, the aliens landed. they needed a work force, but the locals (neanderthals) were too stupid, and the alien's genetically made workforce, kept dying to diseases.

    So they spliced/mated their work force with the neanderthals to make, well, us.

    hmm, i wonder if i get a really bad hair do, i can get on an episode of Ancient Aliens...

    --
    Be seeing you...
  10. What is this nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Most stupid paper ever. They cannot even find the skeletons, yet believe their DNA and ours matches enough to make offspring? I'm sorry, this is spurious at best. Retarded at worst, and a waste of taxpayer money if this ridiculous 'research' was not privately funded. Show me a proven 'neanderthal' that is legitimate. Give me its genetic code. Show me its evolution into our own DNA. Free up this 'scientific' paper so people with a clue can read it besides the PhD dickwads.

    1. Re:What is this nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Yeah. Look at the health stats in the Muslim and Negro countries, where there is a lot of forced sex and sex with other species like sheep and whatnot. Are they enjoying the "better immunity" that all this sex is giving them? Haha, the stats say otherwise. But don't worry, in a moment they'll tell you it is easy to separate out the "genes" that come from Neanderthal men today, and I'll be called racist and whatnot. For stating the obvious.

  11. So, what you're saying is... by MindPrison · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...that I should have sex with my neighbors?

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:So, what you're saying is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO! With your cousins (evolutionary). Where has reading comprehension gone these days???? You must be from the dirty side of the gene pool.

    2. Re:So, what you're saying is... by MindPrison · · Score: 1

      Ah, the pool-boy. I was wondering where you were this summer, no tip for you then.

      --
      What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    3. Re:So, what you're saying is... by julesh · · Score: 2

      Yes. Assuming they're H. sapiens and you're interested in helping them out...

  12. human spirit beat by real sex religious trainings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thou shalt not, blah blah blah, unless.... father may i insists? according to the hymenology council, we were supposed to shalt quite randomly as we were (grandly) designed to do, making more of us, & caring wholeheartedly for our perfectly blended creations. we needn't have done anything else of measure? where did it all fall apart? gargoyles? subscription toilets? what?

    disarm. tell the truth. read the teepeeleaks etchings. monkeys treat each other better than we do. we treat monkeys better than we treat each other. monkeys never had hymens. why is that relevant? thanks.

  13. So, it's cool if I hook up with my cousin now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woo! You all may have teased us for being inbred, for years, but I think you owe us a big thank you, now!

    1. Re:So, it's cool if I hook up with my cousin now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. You fellas go right ahead.

      And squeal like a pig.

  14. "Death Before Dishonor" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As my wife explained it, it means my death before I dishonor or embarrass her if I'm caught in an adulterous act. In simpler terms, she'd kill me if she caught me with anyone else. This "obsolete" moral code is still very much alive, as evidenced in the newspapers by daily reports of cheating husbands or wives being killed by their angry spouses despite severe penalties by the law.

    This is another thing nature does anyway.

  15. That is what sex is for... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently, one of the major upsides of sex(from a darwinian, rather than purely recreational, perspective) of the not-intuitively-all-that-sensible arrangement of having to seek out a conspecific, risk sexually transmitted infection, and mate simply in order to reproduce, is the rapid genetic diversification you can achieve by recombining genomes with others. Your asexual organisms have it much easier; but they have to depend on mutation(or, as with some bacteria, quasi-sex genetic exchange mechanisms).

    The neat organisms, in my opinion, are the edge cases that can go either way. this piece(sorry about the paywall...) examines snails that can either reproduce sexually or spawn clones asexually. As it turns out, in areas with higher parasite loads, the snails resort to sex at much higher rates in order to keep abreast of the parasite threat, while the less pressured snails go for the rapid and low-risk strategy of asexual cloning.

    1. Re:That is what sex is for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I for one welcome our future slimy overlords.

    2. Re:That is what sex is for... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Probably don't need to worry about our slimy overlords; but it would be interesting to know if this bit of immune-boosting quasi-bestiality helped make humans the pervasive species they are:

      Compared to hunter-gatherers, residents of combination agricultural and town/city civilizations are horribly disease riddled. Animal husbandry means zoonotic diseases and parasites in horrific quantity, grain-based agriculture means truly hideous oral health, and urbanization means drinking and sleeping where you shit. It's only in places with 19th+ century sanitation and 20th+ century medicine that the advantages of wealth and technology in sedentary civilizations started to translate into disease levels less horrid than pre-agricultural ones(even then, things like the yearly flu shot because some new combination of porcine, avian, and human viruses has emerged is a classic animal-husbandry parasite issue).. One wonders if any other reasonably-smart hominids ever took a crack at farming; but had to give it up or die because their immune systems just couldn't hack it...

    3. Re:That is what sex is for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your asexual organisms have it much easier; but they have to depend on mutation(or, as with some bacteria, quasi-sex genetic exchange mechanisms).

      It's debatable whether or not single cell organisms need an immune system. They've got horizontal gene transfer, which is the result of viruses themselves. Being resistant to viruses means less mutation.

    4. Re:That is what sex is for... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Bacteria experience HGT via phages. So if one can say that sex can lead to sexually transmitted diseases, in bacteria diseases (phages) can lead to disease-transmitted sex.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    5. Re:That is what sex is for... by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Are you a proponent of the raw food movement?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    6. Re:That is what sex is for... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'm of the opinion that the raw food movement is vitalist nonsense(yes, switching from the twinkie diet to a raw food diet might incidentally be good for you; but not because cooking destroys the magic life vital principle in foods...)

      However, it is my understanding that the fossil evidence we have is pretty definite on the decline in population-level health(and the enormous increase in population density) once humans began farming.

  16. implications for show business in Tijuana? by codeAlDente · · Score: 1

    Did they mention anything about donkeys?

    --
    He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
  17. what about black people? by alewar · · Score: 2

    some months ago there was a study proposing that black people do not have Neanderthal ancestry. do they have a different immune system?

    1. Re:what about black people? by angiasaa · · Score: 1

      We corrupted them. Duh! :-D Or at least I like the idea.

      --
      Geekism is your _only_ God!
    2. Re:what about black people? by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      some months ago there was a study proposing that black people do not have Neanderthal ancestry. do they have a different immune system?

      Yes. Click through to the BBC News article.

      --
      Find free books.
    3. Re:what about black people? by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      arent they unique in their sickle cell anemia? maybe mating with the neanderthal kept everyone else from being pre-disposed to that?

    4. Re:what about black people? by danlip · · Score: 2

      No, the sickle cell gene is actually a positive adaptation - if you carry only one copy of the gene you are resistant to malaria, which is why the gene is common in regions where malaria is common. You only get sickle-cell anemia if you have two copies of the gene, and it's statistically far more likely to have one copy. So it's a trade off, but perhaps positive in the balance.

  18. uhhh a tooth? by silentisland · · Score: -1

    Ridiculous. All DNA based on a tooth of something called a Denisovan. How ridiculous has government based research become? A dying breed of not even proven proto-humans providing immunity to us now, 50000 years in the future? Did that rampant wild sex help the Native Americans to European pestilence? Did it stop it when Cook took over the Polynesian islands? Spurious, and moreso, plain stupid 'research'. These people have us all fooled with their dumb degrees. How about you put your money into something like investigating cancer, or making AIDS a curable disease for those who need it - the poor? Yet we wile away our time researching cave men....and thinking human/caveman sex makes us stronger immunologically. ha.

    1. Re:uhhh a tooth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your entire comment reeks of idiocy. You begin your tirade by implying that DNA is invalid because it happens to have been extracted from a tooth belonging to a subspecies to which we have assigned a name you feel is funny. You then begin a series of rhetorical questions that, in the order you ask them, express disdain for the government, a misunderstanding of what constitutes proof, lay out a false analogy between "rampant wild sex" within a population and interbreeding of moderately divergent populations in nature, and an implication that, because you lack the background and/or intelligence to understand how researchers arrived at their conclusions, the scientific community operates on authority instead of on evidence. Typically when I see that argument it's a form of projection, usually from a religious background. You finish your useless rant by completely ignoring that various avenues of research are being carried on concurrently, that evolutionary insights are absolutely central to HIV and AIDS research, and then throwing in an appeal to pity not really aimed at anyone in particular. The final syllable of your comment is "ha", by which you mean to imply that anyone who takes you seriously would consider your point established. Go back to conservapedia, creationist.

    2. Re:uhhh a tooth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderated you insightful and parent moronic, but wanted to express my frustration at not being able to do it several times.

    3. Re:uhhh a tooth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those trolls are popping out like peanuts at fall in various boards and blogs. Likely some are even the same person..

  19. Thats why some people fuck black girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Thats why some people fuck black girls. They think they will pass on some strong yard-monkey genes

  20. Modern flu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they are saying we are so vulnerable to new strains of flu because of lack of incest?
    I can fix this.

  21. Ugly by RudyHartmann · · Score: 1

    Okay. So having sex with ugly girls will cure my colds and I'll live longer? Maybe the big cave in the sky is better.

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
  22. I can see them talking! by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

    I can has your sweet sweet genes?

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  23. African immune systems no worse than others! by ad454 · · Score: 0

    This does not make sense. Neanderthal genes are not present in humans with a pure central to southern African lineage, which are present in non-Africans and Africans from the Mediterranean.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

    And yet, those Africans without Neanderthal genes do not seem to have any weaknesses in their immune systems in dealing with viruses compared to others. True there are some illnesses that Africans suffer more than others, but there are also other illnesses that Europeans and Asians also suffer from more as well, so it seems to balance out.

    Those Neanderthal genes in North American and South American native populations did not prevent more than 90% of them from being wiped out by smallpox, typhus, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, cholera, malaria, tuberculosis, mumps, yellow fever, and pertussis when the first Europeans arrived.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Depopulation_from_disease

    1. Re:African immune systems no worse than others! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Mod Parent up now!
      A broad unscientific statement about how having a certain genetic makeup could be the reason why we might have greater natural immunity is on the same level as what Nazi scientists claimed about the ancestral history of Nordic peoples!
      We are forgetting that our social changes, sanitation, medicine, availability of a nutritious constant diet, technologies that killed off the competition...guns, military etc has done more to increase our numbers than immunity could ever do. Lest we forget the killer diseases mutate and we and our medicine is in crisis fighting bugs right now...So all this scientific effort to understand how immunity is genetic and racially based is money and more importantly brain power abuse!

    2. Re:African immune systems no worse than others! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it helped 10% of them to stay alive?

    3. Re:African immune systems no worse than others! by Troed · · Score: 1

      those Africans without Neanderthal genes do not seem to have any weaknesses in their immune systems in dealing with viruses compared to others. True there are some illnesses that Africans suffer more than others, but there are also other illnesses that Europeans and Asians also suffer from more as well, so it seems to balance out.

      "seems", unqualified, is a very non-scientific statement though. It sounds like an interesting hypothesis to test.

      --
      it's in my head
  24. tell that to all the people that died of by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    plague, aids, flu, tuberculosis, pneumonia and any other deadly disease

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  25. no one can do that oen guys hair do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EVER its against the aliens rules

  26. Families Subject to Health Problems by BoRegardless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've often wondered about some families I've known with continual health problems.

    I have considered that maybe they did not inherit sufficient "protection" or DNA to give them resistance to certain viruses, fungi and bacteria or maybe more properly the ability to generate such resistance.

    Given the article's credit to interbreeding amongst early groups and the variations in today's populations of ancient DNA traces, I am wondering more about my hypothesis.

    We humans are very diverse indeed; it is more than skin deep.

    1. Re:Families Subject to Health Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asians and Caucasians are basically clones in comparison to sub Saharan Africans.

    2. Re:Families Subject to Health Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is ever only skin deep.

    3. Re:Families Subject to Health Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have considered that maybe they did not inherit sufficient "protection" or DNA to give them resistance

      Firstly, it's not the total amount of DNA, it's its informational content that is important. (Although there are some nice hereditary syndromes resulting from relatively unstable, degrading DNA.)

      Secondly, a familial tendency to disease is most often not a consequence of a defect in the genes of the immune system itself, but rather of completely unrelated genes, like some metabolism-related genes that weaken overall health. And, even more often, it's not a specific gene defect, but a special combination of several gene variants that are not that bad on their own, but do their work in combination.

      Or, as somebody has already said, it may be a plain nutrition thing.

      But there's still much funding to get in this field of research! ;)

      IAAMB

    4. Re:Families Subject to Health Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is well known that hypochondria is hereditary.

  27. Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Funny

    Must be why white girls give it for nig-nogs.

    Definitely worth reading the article before trolling... it actually states the complete opposite:-

    "At least one variety of HLA gene occurs frequently in present day populations from West Asia, but is rare in Africans.

    The researchers say that is because after ancient humans left Africa some 65,000 years ago, they started breeding with their more primitive relations in Europe, while those who stayed in Africa did not .

    "The HLA genes that the Neanderthals and Denisovans had, had been adapted to life in Europe and Asia for several hundred thousand years, whereas the recent migrants from Africa wouldn't have had these genes," said study leader Peter Parham."

    Also

    there is a 8-inch uncut nigger cock pumping their precious little angle's pussy

    Maybe their little "angle" was just doing it to be obtuse. She can get away with it if she is acute girl after all...

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Must be why white girls give it for nig-nogs.

      Definitely worth reading the article before trolling... it actually states the complete opposite:-

      "At least one variety of HLA gene occurs frequently in present day populations from West Asia, but is rare in Africans. The researchers say that is because after ancient humans left Africa some 65,000 years ago, they started breeding with their more primitive relations in Europe, while those who stayed in Africa did not . "The HLA genes that the Neanderthals and Denisovans had, had been adapted to life in Europe and Asia for several hundred thousand years, whereas the recent migrants from Africa wouldn't have had these genes," said study leader Peter Parham."

      Also

      there is a 8-inch uncut nigger cock pumping their precious little angle's pussy

      Maybe their little "angle" was just doing it to be obtuse. She can get away with it if she is acute girl after all...

      Since niggers are more primitive technologically and socially maybe they are so close to being Neanderthals that they wouldn't gain any special immunity from interbreeding with them.

      You just couldn't wish for a land richer in natural resources than Africa. But who actually made progress and invented things like the ability to sail the globe? The white man and the asian man, that's who. Which group of humans has been around the longest and that means should have the most experience at forming stable cultures that don't decay into anarchy and violence? African blacks, yet who has the most dictators and civil wars and mass starvation due solely to allocation of resources? That's right, african blacks.

      The real racists are the ones who can look at blacks and how they live and what progress they have made and still claim they are equal to whites and asians. People like that are so obsessed with race they care about it more than objective fact, making them the true racists.

      I don't abuse dogs and cats just because they are more primitive and less advanced than me. Knowing the black man is inferior to the white man and the asian man is not a reason to mistreat them. People who harm somebody else because of race are monsters just like rapists and murderers. But that does not make the black man my equal.

    2. Re:Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, it is impossible to state this without getting labeled a racist. I feel similarly about Native Americans, too, since they are essentially a failed ethnicity.

      Let's face it -- you fail socially and technologically, you deserve to be wiped out. What's so hard about that?

    3. Re:Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Since niggers are more primitive technologically and socially maybe they are something something something

      tl; dr

      You're under the mistaken impression that I was taking you seriously in the first place and would read your half-baked "serious" troll. I wasn't, I was taking the piss. :-P

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    4. Re:Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is the idea that they "deserved to be wiped out". As this data suggests a shrinking 'ethnicity' or gene pool contribute to larger 'ethnicitys'/gene pools. In other words smaller gene pools are absorbed by larger ones. Social and technological are a moving target and many times inversely proportional to each other as larger groups become more technological and less social. Scientific discussion about the development and interaction of different populations is not racist. Saying they deserved to be wiped out is. If we are going to twist biology to suit our argument then consider, by population numbers, anglos are not the most successful 'race' at the moment.

    5. Re:Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, those dictators and civil wars had nothing to do with the fallout of European colonialism.

      Oops, I brought Europeans' misdeeds into this! No doubt you're going to predictably toss the word "liberal" or "politically correct" at me without knowing a thing about my political views!

    6. Re:Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      okay, at least this is coherent, but would you also agree that the ashkenazi jew is superior to other whites by the same criteria? or do you have some special reason for why jewish intelligence doesn't count (you wouldn't be the first)?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    7. Re:Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About this time, some asshat will jump in waving Guns, Germs and Steel in everyone's face.

    8. Re:Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop blaming the hunter for eating the prey.

    9. Re:Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're telling me!

    10. Re:Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Actually, Jared Diamond's geographic-accident hypothesis seems to work quite well for explaining how both Europe and Asia ended up more technologically advanced than Africa or various native populations. Many race-obsessed folks seem to forget about the 'Asia' part; granted, this AC did not make that mistake ("The white man _and the asian man_, that's who.") [emphasis added]
      Also, Diamond does not as much lead to exalting all Europeans/Asians or condemning all Africans/natives. To be quite honest, there’s some decent folks and some trash everywhere, even if the proportions thereof (or other factors) are different.
      Sometimes decent people can’t realize their full potential because of the trash, and trash leeches off of their betters. Also, sometimes there seems to be civilization that’s simply not as large-scale or as technologically advanced as European/Asian counterparts.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    11. Re:Did Not Read The Fine Article FAIL, er... ure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just couldn't wish for a land richer in natural resources than Africa. But who actually made progress and invented things like the ability to sail the globe?

      People whose land wasn't so rich in natural resources, and therefore never had to sail the globe. Duh.

  28. News for Nerds? by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does /. has a real obsession getting to the bottom of Neanderthal Sex research? I search "Neanderthal sex" in the /. search and come up with 11 stories since 2005 (listed below). But when I search for conventional term "heterosexual marriage", all I find is a single story on "world of warcraft"... go figure.

    Neanderthal Sex Boosted Immunity In Modern Humans 56

    Neanderthal Genes Found In All Non-African Populations 406

    New Ancient Human Identified 148

    Neanderthals "Had Sex" With Modern Man 536

    Were Neanderthals Devoured By Humans? 502

    New Evidence Debunks "Stupid" Neanderthal 505

    Neanderthals and Humans Diverged 660K Years Ago 128

    Did Humans Get Their Big Brains From Neanderthals? 579

    Deciphering the DNA Code of Neanderthal Man 188

    Modern Humans, Neanderthals Shared Earth for 1,000 Years 765

    Hominids: The Neanderthal Parallax 132

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:News for Nerds? by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Probably innate. Slashdot is largely pro-atheism, and subconsciously, if not consciously, the average subscriber knows they need to deal with the "human" versus "animal" differentiation issue at some point, as naturalism gives them no basis to create a distinction.

      Naturally, failure to have a justification for differentiation has tremendous ethical implications, of which sexual behavior is one. A nagging pull toward an issue that would be unremarkable except for one's own psychological inconsistencies is a natural result.

      For some of us, i.e. those of us of a rather Gnostic outlook, we may as well just sit back and... ahem... let nature take its course.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    2. Re:News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that being atheistic means that one is psychologically inconsistent?

    3. Re:News for Nerds? by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Have you eaten a steak, and still maintain you have "rights"?

      Why you, and not the cow?

      Materially-verifiable differentiating attributes only, please.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    4. Re:News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an ocean of sites pushing the rightwing protect heterosex agenda and you're whining because one web site doesn't shove that theme down our throats? No one is stopping the rightwing from pushing it's protect marriage/family values agenda but that doesn't mean that every single site has to give them equal time. We come to places like Slashdot to hear the other viewpoints.

      FYI Neanderthals mixing with Homo Sapiens has nothing to do with marriage or religion. It likely happened 35,000 years before the Bible was written so it predates the whole marriage issue by tens of thousands of years. This has to do with genetics and how we ended up with Europeans with blond and red hair, blue eyes and white skin while none of these traits ever evolved in Africa. It wasn't mutation is was interbreeding. The mixing also helped us adapt to the cold, Scottish hairy legs being one adaptation:-), as well as local diseases that we hadn't been exposed to in the past. The hybrids, Europeans and Asians, wound up being hardier and better adapted than the indigenous population, Neanderthals and the hybrids wound up replacing both Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens in those areas. That's what the post was about not marriage between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens or any free love agenda.

    5. Re:News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the fact that their brain to body mas ratio is twenty times lower than ours, and we have proportionally much more cerebral cortex than them, so in terms of higher function are massively more skewed even still, does not count. You should also remember that a great deal of atheists steer clear of meat or any animal product obtained by killing the animal for just this reason. As a groping "atheist" is about as descriptive as monotheist (a group which includes certain forms of Satan worshipers as well as Christians by the way), you should look at the difference between and within Nihilists, Hedonists and Humanists for a comparable level of differing opinion.

    6. Re:News for Nerds? by Empiric · · Score: 1

      So, just irrelevant relative distinctions regarding brain size, for which there are animal examples both less and greater than humans which you also don't ascribe rights to, rather than something which could justify it other than as a non-sequitur.

      I'm already familiar with the other positions you mention. They also are philosophically incoherent in having no objective justification even offered for their purely subjective stances.

      So, basically, same question. Again.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    7. Re:News for Nerds? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      To learn about Neanderthal sex we have to look at our DNA. This is completely in the realm of science - hence it is news for nerds.

      On the other hand, heterosexual marriage is commonplace. The evidence for this surrounds us all the time and can be seen with our own eyes. This is neither news nor nerdy. And why do you make the connection between sex and marriage anyway? That seems to be outside the scope of the article.

    8. Re:News for Nerds? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      It likely happened 35,000 years before the Bible was written so it predates the whole marriage issue by tens of thousands of years

      Actually, marriage predates the Bible. It is not really a religious thing, more a family construct that helps ensure the survival of ones own offspring.

    9. Re:News for Nerds? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I search "Neanderthal sex" in the /. search and come up with 11 stories

      Now try Google without the family filter. I bet you get more than eleven.

    10. Re:News for Nerds? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Neanderthals mixing with Homo Sapiens has nothing to do with marriage or religion. It likely happened 35,000 years before the Bible was written so it predates the whole marriage issue by tens of thousands of years.

      So marriage only occurred after the Bible was written? Which part, the earliest part which was written by Moses during the 40 years in the desert? Even that described marriages thousands of years prior to Moses. Overt monogamy (with covert polygamy, or at least cheating) is a strong part of almost every ancient culture. Although, some cultures practiced overt polygamy, and some religions outright hedonism (the priestesses of some greek and roman dieties had sex with all comers).

    11. Re:News for Nerds? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      There is no differentiation between animals and humans. humans are animals, albeit a specific kind. The morality we use to treat others of our specie vs other species is an evolved behavior. Morals are based on feelings and feelings are based on instincts.

    12. Re:News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Naturalism" absolutely has a basis for distinction. All humans are animals, but not all animals are humans as humans are a particular species of animal. It isn't rocket science...

    13. Re:News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain to me why a "relative distinction regarding brain size" is irrelevant. What we're really getting at here is that humans are significantly more intelligent than any of its closest species. We are unique in our ability to understand and appreciate the "rights" that we have (whatever it is you mean by that anyhow). More to the point, a cow has no rights because it does not care whether it has rights.

      Even if I were willing to concede that strong support for animal rights is required to be logically consistent with atheist beliefs, your argument is still flawed because many atheists do in fact believe that animals should have rights. Being an atheist does not create any sort of ethical dilemma as atheism is merely a lack of believe in a god. Atheists are not a homogenous group with a consistent set of beliefs.

      But for the sake of argument, let us assume that you are correct. Your solution to this quandary is to say that an omnipotent being created man separate and unique from the animal kingdom and that this is why we enjoy rights that animals do not. How is this not just trading one philosophically indefensible position for another?

    14. Re:News for Nerds? by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      You kind of proved his point. News for nerds, indeed. Stuff that matters to nerds.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    15. Re:News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably innate. Slashdot is largely pro-atheism, and subconsciously, if not consciously, the average subscriber knows they need to deal with the "human" versus "animal" differentiation issue at some point, as naturalism gives them no basis to create a distinction.

      Whereas as those adhering to some religions have the opposite problem: a scripture-inspired opinion that there's an absolute distinction between humans and animals which doesn't fit well with apparent biological continuity.

      Naturally, failure to have a justification for differentiation has tremendous ethical implications, of which sexual behavior is one.

      How is it relevant to sexual behaviour? A rule such as 'feel disgust at the thought of sex with other species' isn't difficult - although, of course, boundaries between species might be somewhat fuzzy as certain times. Also, a scripture-inspired explanation dividing the world in to just 'human' and 'non-human' doesn't account for humans' differentiation between, say, eating dogs and eating pigs.

    16. Re:News for Nerds? by xelah · · Score: 1

      Have you eaten a steak, and still maintain you have "rights"?

      Why you, and not the cow?

      Materially-verifiable differentiating attributes only, please.

      (Different AC here). The proximal reason is that humans eating other humans produces feelings of disgust, anger and shame (with some exceptions in some cases, times and places), and also because humans socialise with each other (humans do not generally feel that it is moral to eat their pets). Why have we evolved those? Disease? Social cohesion (similar to prohibitions on murder)? A side effect of some other trait? Chance? I don't know, but it does look rather like we have.

      If you want a direct logical explanation for morality, rather than a biological explanation for its emotional generators, then you need to revise your expectations. Human morality is not logical in that sense and it's very easy to find inconsistencies, including amongst the religious.

    17. Re:News for Nerds? by xelah · · Score: 1

      (Different AC here).

      Doh! Oh well, I didn't care about those moderations anyway....

    18. Re:News for Nerds? by xelah · · Score: 1

      Probably innate. Slashdot is largely pro-atheism, and subconsciously, if not consciously, the average subscriber knows they need to deal with the "human" versus "animal" differentiation issue at some point, as naturalism gives them no basis to create a distinction.

      Have you eaten a steak, and still maintain you have "rights"? Why you, and not the cow?

      Hmm. And how would you make the human/animal distinction in our ancestral past? Was there a creature which, in a sharp and religiously-defined human-animal or immortal soul-vs-unsouled(?) sense, had rights but had parents who did not? Or was there some level of continuity, from non-human apes to human apes as we evolved?

    19. Re:News for Nerds? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      On the contrary your completely logic free, ad hominen post just demonstrates that you're only an ignorant animal that reacts to arguments you don't like only with insults. You lose.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    20. Re:News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gnostic? Or agnostic? There's a teensy difference....

    21. Re:News for Nerds? by actionslacks42 · · Score: 1

      "Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun" - Max Weber

  29. Did they also save 15% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on car insurance?

    1. Re:Did they also save 15% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo momma's so easy, even a caveman could do her!!

  30. Now You Know Why She Married You . . . by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    . . . and then divorced you after having the kids.

  31. Genetic Diversity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now now. if we all fuck our sisters for a generation, the genetic diversity will skyrocket thanks to mutations and the re-introduction of recessed genes. Sign me up, I've wanted in her pants for years.

    1. Re:Genetic Diversity by terlmann · · Score: 1

      I would actually like to consider this too. When you examine our genetic history, and trace back to common eve/adam, you realize that at some point in a 10-40000 year cycle, the human race moves toward incest and then back toward cross-breeding. Hence the egyptains.

  32. Selection by RudyHartmann · · Score: 1

    Women that preferred oral sex over genital sex were at a disadvantage in the gene pool. It doesn't matter what porn movies portray. Get real dudes. Ever wonder why it's really so hard to get her to do it? Its in the genes. :-)

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
  33. Interracial relationships.... by lenski · · Score: 3, Informative

    inter-racial relationships are almost always a white woman and a black man.

    No.

    Look about halfway down the page at a graph showing gender choices in interracial marriages. A smaller fraction of black women intermarry than black men, but the ratio is 22.0 % to 8.9 %. Not "almost always". Additionally, the fraction of mate selection (white, histpanic, asian, other) among those who do intermarry is nearly identical between the genders.

    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1616/american-marriage-interracial-interethnic?src=prc-latest&proj=peoplepress

    I should know better.. Don't feed trolls, especially cowards... But this whole race thing needs to be stomped where ever and whenever it appears.

    1. Re:Interracial relationships.... by xelah · · Score: 1

      Additionally, the fraction of mate selection (white, histpanic, asian, other) among those who do intermarry is nearly identical between the genders.

      Hispanic+non-hispanic white is intermarrying? Wow! Maybe it's my European perspective but it'd never have occurred to me to divide people in to hispanic and non-hispanic if Americans hadn't done it first. I can see physical, cultural and temperamental differences between Brits, Spaniards, French, Italians, Greeks, Swedes and so on but I'd never have put marrying a French or Italian woman in a different category to marrying a Spanish or Portuguese woman.

    2. Re:Interracial relationships.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That tells you something about the world view of the Americans, doesn't it?

  34. I doubt that it was consensual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am pretty sure the Neanderthals raped their weaker cousins and imparted their immunity to us. I wonder if that is the reason we invented marriage and the rules around it. I doubt slashdot would want me to elaborate on that statement.

  35. Thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - descendant of all the people who didn't.

  36. Opposites attract by Livius · · Score: 1

    ...for this very reason, and that's been known for some time.

    1. Re:Opposites attract by xelah · · Score: 1

      Except that opposites don't attract. People generally choose similar partners.

  37. Maybe it's nurture? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    It's hard to tell if it's genetic just by looking at one family. A steady diet of fast food may be more influential than the genes one has, for instance.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  38. It just goes to show... by thePuck77 · · Score: 1

    ...there are some problems that really can be solved by a good boning.

    --
    "We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." - Joss Whedon via Angel
  39. Wrong title by tokul · · Score: 1

    Having sex does not change genes. Interbreeding does.
    Considering time when it was happening I would suspect that rape scenario is more likely.

  40. ok. modern humans killed all the neanderthals by decora · · Score: 1

    soooo the stereotype of neanderthals as hyper violent aggressors doesnt really fit the data?

    wouldnt that stereotype be more applicable to, i dont know, us?

  41. zoonotic disease vs genetics by decora · · Score: 1

    a lot of those diseases you mention existed because Eurasians had domesticated cattle and pigs and so forth and so on - which directly led to zoonotic diseases. the Americas did not have cattle nor did they have pigs.

  42. what if a predilection for fast food is genetic? by decora · · Score: 1

    touche monsieur!!!!

  43. also no stories on how much Jesus loves us by decora · · Score: 1

    i agree. slashdot has a clear bias against christian conservatives. it goes further than the 'ban on jesus' though. there is also the fact that it tends to discuss stories on Linux to the exclusion of products made by Christian corporations like Microsoft. We all know that Jesus believed in Capitalism - and obviously slashdot is some kind of Marxist plot to destroy both.

    1. Re:also no stories on how much Jesus loves us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christian corporations like Microsoft

      But, but .. Microsoft supports heterogeneity in the workforce so it can't be Christian! A true Christian company has homogenic workforce.

  44. Viruses may accelerate mutations by claykarmel · · Score: 1

    This makes some sense. Homo Sapiens may have evolved through particularly rapid evolution. If viruses (virii -- what a word) play a role in genetic mutation, which I think is now a commonly held theory, Homo Sapiens might have 'stabilized' by boosting their immunity with some Neanderthal genes.

    It's easy to imagine that slower-evolving species would have better immunity, if the virus theory is right.

    Subsequent natural forces would probably discriminate against the offspring which were stupid, giving the best of both worlds -- smart and comparatively immune.

    I'm not trained in biology -- just remembering other 'stuff that matters'. (early Homo Sapiens were sickly and smart? And then came to rule the world? I'd say that's News for Nerds.)

  45. Vindicated! by Tristanic · · Score: 1

    And people always said I should stop dating my cousin!!

  46. wrong wrong wrong by decora · · Score: 1

    A true Christian company does not approve of homogenic workage