Slashdot Mirror
Neanderthal Sex Boosted Immunity In Modern Humans
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."
I'm sure this knowledge was a big influence on who Mrs. Ballmer chose as a mate.
Trolling is a art,
Want a better immune system for your kiddies?
Call me.
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.
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.
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
...that I should have sex with my neighbors?
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
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
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.
some months ago there was a study proposing that black people do not have Neanderthal ancestry. do they have a different immune system?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.