Slashdot Mirror


Genome of Neandertals Reveals Inbreeding

sciencehabit writes "In a report on the most complete genome of a Neandertal ever sequenced, an international team of researchers has found that the parents of a Neandertal woman from Siberia were as closely related as half-siblings. The genome also shows that at some point the Neandertals interbred with other human groups, including their cousins the Denisovans, and our own modern human ancestors. There are even signs of Denisovans interbreeding with a mysterious archaic species. In all, the study suggests very close encounters among the several kinds of hominins living in the past 125,000 years. The detailed genome of the extinct Neandertals—our closest relatives—also offers a new look at the genetic differences that set our species apart from all the others."

109 comments

  1. Inbreeding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    So, they are from Alabama or the Carolinas?

    1. Re:Inbreeding? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      So, when a cave couple divorced, were they still brother and sister?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Inbreeding? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      There's a good point hidden in the above AC's trollish "joke"; inbreeding happens with almost all, if not all, species, especially when there is a small population of that species. That includes Neanderthals and modern humans, dogs, cats, bonobos...

      This story brings to mind an old pop song by some one hit wonder I haven't heard in almost half a century --

      I'm a neanderthal man
      You're a Neanderthal girl
      Lets make Neanderthal love
      In this Neanderthal world

      (IIRC it was that one verse repeated over and over, a really repetitious and stupid but catchy pop song)

  2. Not surprising by JasoninKS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not a surprise really. There weren't exactly large groups running around to intermingle. You want to procreate and expand the species you had to look within your own local group.

    1. Re:Not surprising by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Not a surprise really. There weren't exactly large groups running around to intermingle. You want to procreate and expand the species you had to look within your own local group.

      They probably didn't have intolerant idiots telling them who they could mate with, either.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Not surprising by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. What is so surprising about some inbreeding? The human animal is an animal after all. Take any animal, and set a limited population apart. They're going to mate, and that population will continue mating, until something happens to reintroduce that limited population back into the larger population. It isn't a matter of preference - it's a matter of necessity.

      Once reintroduced into the larger population, some limited inbreeding may or may not continue. But, interbreeding is going to happen as well.

      Life. What a concept. Life struggles to continue, under all conditions.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Not surprising by quantaman · · Score: 1

      They probably didn't have intolerant idiots telling them who they could mate with, either.

      Taboos against inbreeding are hardly the result of intolerance since inbreeding drastically increases the probability of recessive genes becoming expressed. Since recessive genes are rarely expressed they're not exposed to the same selection pressure and tend to be less fit as a result.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They probably didn't have intolerant idiots telling them who they could mate with, either.

      Taboos against inbreeding are hardly the result of intolerance since inbreeding drastically increases the probability of recessive genes becoming expressed. Since recessive genes are rarely expressed they're not exposed to the same selection pressure and tend to be less fit as a result.

      Yeah, but try telling that to a caveman and all you get back is "Oog make fire! Fire hot! Hot like Oogs sister!".

    5. Re:Not surprising by tlambert · · Score: 1

      They probably didn't have intolerant idiots telling them who they could mate with, either.

      Taboos against inbreeding are hardly the result of intolerance since inbreeding drastically increases the probability of recessive genes becoming expressed. Since recessive genes are rarely expressed they're not exposed to the same selection pressure and tend to be less fit as a result.

      So your claim is that by engaging in inbreeding, we are putting evolutionary pressure on the recessive genes, thus removing them from the gene pool, and that this is beneficial?

      You are aware that, if you have a single gene for sickle cell anemia, rather than coming down with the disease, you're effectively immune to Malaria, since the blood cells will sickle in the presence of Malaria, but not otherwise, right?

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm

    6. Re:Not surprising by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      inbreeding drastically increases the probability of recessive genes becoming expressed

      Not just that, but copy errors, but the thing is that while the relative increase is drastic (> 5x) the absolute occurrence is still small enough (~ 1/20) that enough people "get over" the taboo and the results aren't terrible.

      Anecdotally, I know that the renters across the street had a kid with "those problems" but I also don't know who the people are that I meet everyday who don't have them.

      Anyway, the Neanderthals probably got by OK, if not ideally this way. Well enough to merge back into the mainline lineage anyway.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Not surprising by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Taboos against inbreeding are hardly the result of intolerance since inbreeding drastically increases the probability of recessive genes becoming expressed. Since recessive genes are rarely expressed they're not exposed to the same selection pressure and tend to be less fit as a result.

      So your claim is that by engaging in inbreeding, we are putting evolutionary pressure on the recessive genes, thus removing them from the gene pool, and that this is beneficial?

      Beneficial for the species possibly, but not for the poor individuals who are tasked with the job of carrying those genes out of the pool.

      (though it might be bad of the species as you'll lose some diversity too, recessive genes still get selection without inbreeding)

      You are aware that, if you have a single gene for sickle cell anemia, rather than coming down with the disease, you're effectively immune to Malaria, since the blood cells will sickle in the presence of Malaria, but not otherwise, right?

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm

      Recessive genes are less fit on average, that doesn't mean in some instances they can't be as or even more fit than their non-recessive counterparts.

      The sickle cell gene example, aside from being fascinating, actually proves my point. It would not have survived as a dominant gene in that form since the side effects of full expression are too harmful, it either would have been removed from the genepool, mutated to only go sickle with Malaria, or another gene would have popped up that made it only go sickle with Malaria. It's the fact that it's recessive that's allowed it to retain such poor fitness.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    8. Re:Not surprising by Alomex · · Score: 1

      the absolute occurrence is still small enough (~ 1/20)

      It is 1/20 for each defective gene you carry, so the final probability ends up being much higher.

    9. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the Targaryens.

    10. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that you want to fuck your own sister.

    11. Re:Not surprising by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Replying to undo moderation mouso.

    12. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still beats extinction and no sex.

    13. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not a surprise really. There weren't exactly large groups running around to intermingle. You want to procreate and expand the species you had to look within your own local group.

      Precisely, the landscape wasn't peppered with groups of humans. When you ran into another group your first reaction would have been to cautiously interact with them rather than attack. The opportunity to find a mate that wasn't closely related to you was way more important than wiping out the other group when you could just stay out of their territory and remain friends. These people would not have cared very much if a perspective mate was a Neanderthal, Denisovian or another modern human. Conflict only starts to become common when population levels rise and resources become a limited quantity and our ideas of racial 'purity' are a modern phenomenon.

    14. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is Life....finds a way.

    15. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The opportunity to find a mate that wasn't closely related to you was way more important than wiping out the other group when you could just stay out of their territory and remain friends

      Or if they were weak, you could simply slay the males and the elderly, plunder their resources, and take their women as breeders.

    16. Re:Not surprising by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Or the Westermarck effect, apparently.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    17. Re:Not surprising by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Take that ginger kids!

    18. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would have been a surprise if it did not happen. After all the same thing happened in Homo Sapiens until very recently. If there are not many people, and they don't move around a lot, this is what happens.

      But of course putting 'incest' in a title will get you a lot of readers!

    19. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Taboos against inbreeding are hardly the result of intolerance since inbreeding drastically increases the probability of recessive genes becoming expressed.

      This is an urban myth, happily kept alive by those on higher moral grounds (sarcasm intended). The chance of the offspring of 2 full cousins having diseases from recessive genes is between 2 and 3 percent higher than the chance for 2 random people. Although 2-3 percent may still seem like a lot today, back in the times we are talking about here, it was a fart in the wind and would have gone entirely unnoticed unless the Neanderthals managed to master advanced statistics.

    20. Re:Not surprising by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

      There weren't exactly large groups running around to intermingle.

      Precisely. At this time the entire humanoid population of Europe was under a hundred thousand. Less than a football (any shape or rules) stadium full, spread over an entire continent.

      At which sort of population density, almost everyone you meet has at least one great grandparent in common with you (a modern definition of "incest") ; most people you meet on a daily basis have a grandparent in common with you.

      So, for both Neander-boys and Neander-girls, you get what you can get. If they hadn't, then they'd have become extinct within a couple of tens of years, instead of a couple of myriads (10^5) of years. Seen in that light, it wasn't an unsuccessful strategy.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    21. Re:Not surprising by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "So what you're saying is Life....finds a way."

      Don't you remember? That wasn't 'Life' that was...Newman!

    22. Re:Not surprising by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      It seems to be working for Iceland, for that matter.

      --
      -Styopa
    23. Re:Not surprising by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      Taboos against inbreeding are hardly the result of intolerance since inbreeding drastically increases the probability of recessive genes becoming expressed.

      This is an urban myth, happily kept alive by those on higher moral grounds (sarcasm intended). The chance of the offspring of 2 full cousins having diseases from recessive genes is between 2 and 3 percent higher than the chance for 2 random people. Although 2-3 percent may still seem like a lot today, back in the times we are talking about here, it was a fart in the wind and would have gone entirely unnoticed unless the Neanderthals managed to master advanced statistics.

      This is compounded across generations. It is 2 or 3 percent per generation as the bad genes stick around.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    24. Re:Not surprising by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I would have thought it would go the other way, similar to "modern" bigoted families who would chuck a shit if their son/daughter/etc. produced offspring with a black person.

    25. Re:Not surprising by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Ironically the taboos actually has a similar motivation. In both cases they're trying to prevent their offspring from getting bad genes, the problem with the anti-miscegenation folks is they think other races are bad genes.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    26. Re:Not surprising by swalve · · Score: 1

      And then the people with recessive genes die out and don't pass themselves on. That's the point, if there is such a thing, of DNA. In the long term, good genes win out over bad ones. If the available mating population is small, everyone has to mate a lot and throw away a few 'tards. That's that happens in pretty much all the species- young that don't keep up with their peers are either expelled from the nest or eaten by tigers. Look at the classic example of modern inbreeding- the European royals and their hemophilia. It popped up because of a random mutation, the weak ones died off, and the defect has now been bred out.

      It is the same thing that happens with faulty dominant genes, just on a different time scale. If a dominant gene expresses itself in an environment where it isn't good, only 1/4 of the population survives (assuming it goes classical Mendellian [DD] [Dr] [rD] [rr])

  3. The first Neanderthal sister . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    . . . so easy, a caveman could do her!

    1. Re:The first Neanderthal sister . . . by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      You nearly made me snort my coffee.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:The first Neanderthal sister . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you made me snort my cocaine. Or at least that's what I'm saying if I get caught.

    3. Re:The first Neanderthal sister . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here we go with the "Yo Mama/Sister..." jokes.

    4. Re:The first Neanderthal sister . . . by Zynder · · Score: 2

      Yo momma so stupid she's your sister?

      I don't think I did that right. Someone else care to try?

  4. Incest by JustOK · · Score: 2, Funny

    Incest is best. Keep it in the family. Or genus

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  5. No: inTERbreeding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But hey. If it floats your skirt up, go ahead and fantasize.

    1. Re:No: inTERbreeding by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      I guess family reunions would have been a great place to pick up.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:No: inTERbreeding by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      Anything that MOVES!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:No: inTERbreeding by icebike · · Score: 1

      But hey. If it floats your skirt up, go ahead and fantasize.

      Inbreeding was also noted: The parents of a Neandertal woman from Siberia were as closely related as half-siblings.

      Half sibs sounds like the "modern family" isn't as modern as the hipsters would have you believe.
      My god nothing has changed in over a hundred thousand years!

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:No: inTERbreeding by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Funny

      Correction: Anything that doesn't move fast enough!

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  6. And yet ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... there is no record of a Slashdotter ever having bred with a supermodel.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:And yet ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But maybe with a life-like doll?

  7. They are not from Alabama by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    But modern humans are not from ONE SINGLE stock either.

    For example, the Denisovans have offsprings, but only part of the modern humans are their offsprings.

    And then, while most modern humans have Neandertal genes inside them, some modern humans do not.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:They are not from Alabama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But modern humans are not from ONE SINGLE stock either.

      For example, the Denisovans have offsprings, but only part of the modern humans are their offsprings.

      And then, while most modern humans have Neandertal genes inside them, some modern humans do not.

      I see. So Neandertals were from Mississippi.

      Got it.

  8. THIS JUST IN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People will fuck anything that moves! News after football.

  9. a DuPont trait, actually by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    in runs in the family

  10. Neandertals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all relative in West Virginia.

  11. Inbreeding? You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well that certainly explains this animated feature, voiced by the last living Neandertal:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8mKIuZ4tIzk#t=8

  12. Actualy This Was All Explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On Acient Aliens.... :-)

  13. What did the Neandertal say on his first date ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Squeal like a pig !"
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    ( apologies to James Dickey and the cast and crew of the film "Deliverance" )

    And someone at Slashdot has a sense of humor of sorts ...

    captcha = stiffer

    1. Re:What did the Neandertal say on his first date ? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You mean "squeal like a H. Sapien"

    2. Re:What did the Neandertal say on his first date ? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I think Ned Beatty needed the apology; and a hug.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  14. We're all the same... by HellCatF6 · · Score: 2

    There was a great article in Science a few weeks ago evaluating 6 extremely complete skeletons that were "collected" by a giant cat about a million years ago. (reference below)
    The biggest revelation to many biologists was the amount of variation among the skulls. If they'd been found independently, they probably would have been put into different species. It's almost as if biologists haven't figured out that people vary quite a bit within species.
    Why can't we just see ourselves as one big amorphous mass of metabolism - still trying to climb out of the primordial ooze?

    A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo, by David Lordkipanidze, Marcia S. Ponce de León, Ann Margvelashvili, Yoel Rak, G. Philip Rightmire, Abesalom Vekua, and Christoph P. E. Zollikofer Science 18 October 2013: 326-331. An early Pleistocene adult skull illuminates the evolution and morphology of the first hominins outside Africa.

    1. Re:We're all the same... by Empiric · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm persistently surprised also by how often evolutionary biologists seem oblivious to the notion of a "birth defect".

      Note that I am not saying that evolution didn't happen. I'm saying that species categorization and the "evidence" for them have become so scientifically loose that the claims are unfalsifiable.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    2. Re:We're all the same... by Atomic+Fro · · Score: 1

      Jack Horner did a great TED Talk about this very issue as it applies to paleontology.

      --

      ==================
      Hippie Logger Jock
      ==================
  15. Incest is Bestest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically in-breading can't occur in clones.

    Look at the Chines: Chromosomes just line-up and what is left behind is the same as what you are arriving to.

    1. Re:Incest is Bestest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Six is having problems
      Adjusting to his clone status


      --Alice Cooper

    2. Re:Incest is Bestest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is a Chine? Lamest racial slur. EVAR.

  16. It was giants by ksemlerK · · Score: 0

    The Bible says so.

    1. Re:It was giants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those were the people from the north, visiting the more slender built tribes of the south for purposes of trade, adventure and glory.

  17. This just in.. by tpstigers · · Score: 1

    Humans like to have sex.

    1. Re:This just in.. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      That's like saying life likes reproducing...

  18. NeandertHal get it right by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Just because they're trendy to talk about, you don't need to use some new-age, look at me, I know about Neanderthals and Denisovans way of spelling their name. They're Neanderthals, despite the fact that 'tal' is the German word that it's based on.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:NeandertHal get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I noticed your sig and I'm a bit low at the moment so: I just want to tell you all here that the LHC is in Europe.

      Whar's mah karmah?

    2. Re:NeandertHal get it right by formfeed · · Score: 2

      They're Neanderthals, despite the fact that 'tal' is the German word that it's based on.

      Thal is the older German spelling of Tal, meaning valley. Both are pronounced the same, with t not th. It simply means Neander valley. The Valley is now called Neandertal, but my uncle kept his original name.

    3. Re:NeandertHal get it right by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      I noticed your sig and I'm a bit low at the moment so: I just want to tell you all here that the LHC is in Europe. Whar's mah karmah?

      Oh, you get a karma increase alright, you just get to share it with the hordes of other trolls who use the AC "account". Unfortunately, any karmic boost is comprehensively outweighed by the karmic bitchslapping (which you also get to share) brought about by the combined actions of those other ACs.

      How about that? Occasionally, life is fair!

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  19. inbreeding by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    an international team of researchers has found that the parents of a Neandertal woman from Siberia were as closely related as half-siblings

    So pretty much like the European royal families, huh?

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
    1. Re:inbreeding by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Yes, since the first comment came up, I was looking for this very comment.

      My first thought when I read the article was...'Hmmm, it didn't work out too well for the Neandrathals inbreeding just like it did not work for the Hapsburgs either.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    2. Re:inbreeding by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      or the pharaohs...

    3. Re:inbreeding by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      The Hapsburgs were more about marrying nieces to their uncles. Which only became a problem when it happened over half a dozen generations, such that Charles II's great great grandma was also his great great great great grandma on the other side.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    4. Re:inbreeding by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, The Ptolemy's made any European Monarch's gene pool look down right diverse!

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  20. Foreplay Neandertal by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Ma? You awake?

  21. "set our species apart from all the others" by Swampash · · Score: 1

    Sweet FA sets us apart from all the others. We're just the latest and most successful members of the genus homo.

    1. Re:"set our species apart from all the others" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet FA sets us apart from all the others. We're just the latest and most successful members of the genus homo.

      Ha! Faggot!

  22. Hence the extinction... by antdude · · Score: 1

    I read that inbreeding was bad and causes issues like defects.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Hence the extinction... by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2

      The problem with inbreeding depends on the closeness of the relationship. With your sibling? If you carry ANY defective recessive genes at all, the chances of a child having it expressed is one half. With your 2nd cousin? A much lower chance of recessives matching. But in a small community, you'll almost certainly be marrying a cousin of some degree or another, even if your culture either marries outside the village (Ashkenazim) or raids for women (Viking or Polynesian, for example). If your culture tracks genealogy and tries to prevent inbreeding, then the problem is reduced. (People in the "Old Country" didn't know WHY inbreeding was bad, but they could see the effects!)

    2. Re:Hence the extinction... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      While closeness is important, repeated closeness is a much bigger factor. You could have a child with your sister with a fairly small chance of birth defects, but if those offspring had offspring, the chances increase dramatically. IIRC, cousin marriages were common in the middle east, but it's a system of parallel cousin marriage with rules that prevent repeatedly drawing from the same small gene pool. It's an interesting mechanism of staying within the tribe without most of the adverse effects of incest.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Hence the extinction... by Cutterman · · Score: 2

      Not so. In Saudi, where cousin marriages are very common, the incidence of genetic defects (particularly ano-genital malformations) is very high. A reconstructive surgeon's paradise. Mac

  23. Inbreeding? In a Small Tribe? I'm SHOCKED! by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2

    Any small tribe or village, even up to the last century, is going to have some inbreeding; if there's only 250 people in your village (and assuming that the population has been relatively stable for the last few hundred years) and every potential mate in your village is at least a 4th cousin, probably more than one way. As James Burke noted, the steam engine caused a revolution in genetic engineering, because with the railroad and the steamship, it was possible to meet and mate with people who weren't related to you at all.

    Hybrid vigor works on people. Look at the stature of people from feudal Japan and China; stereotypically small, almost tiny. When those people came to Hawaii and wed other Japanese (and Chinese) people from other villages, their children were inches taller - living in the same culture, often on similar diets. Their children were taller still, and THEIR children are the size of everybody else.

  24. Re:Inbreeding? In a Small Tribe? I'm SHOCKED! by lxs · · Score: 1

    The summary clearly states inTERbreeding, the title turned it into inbreeding which is more or less the opposite. But this is Slashdot where the editors can't write and the posters can't read.

  25. Re:Inbreeding? In a Small Tribe? I'm SHOCKED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does stature have survival value? Seems very unlikely to me.

  26. Re:Inbreeding? In a Small Tribe? I'm SHOCKED! by iamagloworm · · Score: 1

    The summary clearly states inTERbreeding, the title turned it into inbreeding which is more or less the opposite. But this is Slashdot where the editors can't write and the posters can't read.

    except that TFA includes the quoted title from the summary...

  27. Re:Inbreeding? In a Small Tribe? I'm SHOCKED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The summary clearly states inTERbreeding, the title turned it into inbreeding which is more or less the opposite. But this is Slashdot where the editors can't write and the posters can't read.

    Hmmm who can't read?

    Source article:

    "Paabo and his colleagues could tell that this Siberian Neandertal was the product of inbreeding and that her ancestors also chose their mates from their extended family. This suggests that this Neandertal woman came from a small, isolated population, the team reports online today in Nature."

    Abstract Here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12886.html

    " mating among close relatives was common among her recent ancestors"

    Yes, the article also discusses interbreeding.

  28. aha! Cowboy Neal's long-lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    family tree discovered! good job! Q: What's the definition of incest? A: Sibling revelry!

  29. Re:Yes: INbreeding by flyneye · · Score: 1

    LOL, yeah, they still believe there is such a thing as "Native Americans". Even funnier they still picture them living in "harmony" with nature.Some of these people used to burn pine trees for tribal entertainment, pretty colored fire. Easy to see a LOT of forest fires happening. Garbage was left everywhere. Early strait crossers also ate everything big , slow and easy to catch that they came across; Elephants, giant ground sloths,Camels, whatever was easy and didn't fight effectively. Of course, they got bred with every civ that came over to look around. Which probably include, Vikings, Minoans, Celts( we find Ogam language carved into river rocks to this day.) Chinese( anchor stones all along west coast) Romans (galleys found in Gulf of Mexico) , some say Egyptians because of south American cultures similarities. We know the explorer/conquistadors knocked off some ass when they landed, better believe everyone else did too. This was a melting pot long before "modern" civ showed up.
    AND you won't hear any of this in a classroom because it's "Not nice", "politically incorrect" even "racist", BUT, it is true by archaeological evidence, SO closed minded Pop scientists can kiss my ass. Not really any such thing as an "Indian", but I am still for the U.S. honoring treaties with what I will call the early settlers.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  30. Some Indians called *themselves* Indians by tepples · · Score: 2

    Not really any such thing as an "Indian"

    Then explain Inde, the Apache people's name for themselves before U.S. westward expansion.

    1. Re:Some Indians called *themselves* Indians by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not really any such thing as an "Indian"

      Then explain Inde, the Apache people's name for themselves before U.S. westward expansion.

      While that may be true, it was Columbus who referred to the indigenous people of the Americas as Indians, erroneously thinking he had made it to the Indian Ocean. Even after people realized it was an error, the name stuck (which is why we also have the Carribean called the West Indies). Columbus, never met an Apache, so it is unlikely that Indie or whatever word they had for themselves factored in. If they were using this term prior to the end of the 15th century, then it is coincidence. If use of that term came later, then it is likely they adopted it from early encounters with various European groups.

    2. Re:Some Indians called *themselves* Indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Indes were musicians who still use Myspace.

    3. Re:Some Indians called *themselves* Indians by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Happenstance of a ratio of limited phonemes to chance. Similar results appear in dictionaries of all languages. Except in click based language, good luck finding a dictionary for that group of languages , handy on the bookshelf. That particular combination appears in English and other languages in that and similar forms from "Independence" to Hindi" and "in-depth" to " in de back". You could find others with enough dedication and http://translate.google.com/
      Let me know how that works out for you. Some etymology couldn't hurt.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  31. Re:Inbreeding? In a Small Tribe? I'm SHOCKED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Depends on the environment. But it doesn't need to have survival value, it just needs to improve reproductive success over several generations (its no good having lots of children if it results in fewer grandchildren). Look at the male Peacock's tail, in itself it is clearly detrimental to survival, but a big colourful tail works as an indicator of greater fitness to the females.

  32. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    And what arose form this inbreeding?

    Modern Man.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  33. populations NOT species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it may beOK to identify different human populations; this news does great disservice to the fact these all the SAME species. Next we'll be identifying the moderns populations of humans residing in sub-Sahara Africa as less than human.

  34. Re:Yes: INbreeding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think your thoughts on what is taught don't match up with what is actually taught.

  35. What happens in Neander Valley ... by donberryman · · Score: 1

    ... stays in Neander Valley.

  36. Genocide- and organised religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is only ONE intelligent ape species on this planet- us. But we know, as an absolute fact, that once there were many. What happened? Organised religion.

    Before the age of writing (recorded history), Man (us) developed 'organised religion', and organised religion had only ONE real goal- to exterminate every other intelligent ape species on the planet.

    Human spirituality is the most beautiful aspect of Man, and organised religion the most vile and evil perversion of our inherent spirituality. Given that every individual can find spiritual purpose for themselves in their own lives, WHAT, exactly, do you think the purpose of organised religion is meant to be?

    Organised religion seeks to define "THE OTHER", and inherently define 'the other' a fundamental 'evil' or a fundamental 'lesser'. Put simply, 'the other' is to be exterminated or enslaved. Judaism, for example, spent most of the last one thousand years plus defining the dark-skinned Humans of Africa as 'the other', and actively generated as many mechanisms as possible, first in partnership of the pre-Muslim peoples, then in partnership with the Muslims, then in partnership with the Modern Christians of Europe and the Americas, to enslave these people. Organised religions, by definition, define their members as the "MASTER RACE" or "THE CHOSEN PEOPLE" (same thing), and need to emphasis this fact by identifying "sub-Humans", and treating these people as badly as possible.

    Man's first organised religions had it 'easy'. The 'others' were the other intelligent ape species, easily identified by appearance, and different inherent patterns of behaviour. Just as Judaic (Judaism and Modern Christianity are Judaic religions- original Christianity was not) America criminalised sex and marriage between 'white' and 'black' Humans across most of America's history, our ancestors living in far less developed societies (pre-writing) were infinitely more vulnerable to the racist messages of the leaders of the first organised religions.

    We wiped out the 'competition', although to ordinary Humans, our genetic cousins were NEVER competition. Not all of this extermination was done with blatant mass murder, although much went this way. Just as much extermination happened using the British Empire methods of 'reservations' and forced 'migration' where 'the other' could be indirectly starved, or herded together to suffer the maximum effects of disease, and massive increases in the rates of infant mortality.

    Again, put simply, the leaders of early organised religions did whatever their local flock would tolerate. Direct mass murder where possible. Indirect mass murder (as seen in more recent times with the culling of the local population in parts of Africa, the Americas, and the South Asian islands down through Australia) where the flock proved to be more 'sensitive'.

    Today, organised religion (especially the Judaic trio of Islam, Judaism and Modern Christianity) is more aggressive and more murderous than at any previous time. 'Freedom of Conscience' has not lessened the grip of organised religion, but through "trial by fire" forced organised religion to become vastly more, well 'organised' and educated in the means of effective population control.

    Today, the most powerful organised religious leaders agree with Bill Gates and Tony Blair that at least THREE BILLION of us are "surplus to requirements". Blair is happy to point to the genocide of other intelligent ape species to justify his claim that "sometimes god's will means doing the 'unthinkable' ".

  37. Re:Inbreeding? In a Small Tribe? I'm SHOCKED! by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    When those people came to Hawaii and wed other Japanese (and Chinese) people from other villages, their children were inches taller - living in the same culture, often on similar diets. Their children were taller still, and THEIR children are the size of everybody else.

    Similar, but almost certainly not the same diet their parents had growing up. Heights is up across the Western world across population due to increases in available calories. The Dustbowl and the Great Depression were the last times in America that large swathes of the population suffered famine. Despite all the unhealthy effects of too many calories in the American diet, we generally have far more access to protein and to vitamins & minerals than our ancestors from about a century ago and than people in most of China even today.

    Ironically though, too much nutrition (i.e. obesity) in childhood can retard the adolescent growth spurt. This is part of why America is no longer the tallest nation.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  38. Obligatory - Joe Dirt by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

    So I did a real bad thing there because...

    ...l think you're my sister.
    Is that all? No.
    My family's last name is Buckwalter.
    My brother's name is Cletus.
    So you see, we're not related.
    We can have sex again.
    Joe, what's the matter?
    Don't I turn you on?
    I don't know what the problem is.
    Would it help if you went back to thinking I'm your sister?
    Like I'm some sort of white-trash perv?!
    I'm your sister. I'm your sister.
    Oh, you're my sister!

  39. Re:FUCK YOU OTHER DUCK by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    I'm intrigued as to what's behind that link, but given the title I don't think I'm game to click it.

  40. Bad Science by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Many scientists classify modern humans and Neanderthals as both the same species, they're both human e.g., Homo sapiens. They are then classified as different sub-species. Sub-species can interbreed.

    It is also spelled Neanderthal, with an 'h'.

    I know, picky, picky, picky...

  41. Re:FUCK YOU OTHER DUCK by BluBrick · · Score: 1

    I'm intrigued as to what's behind that link, but given the title I don't think I'm game to click it.

    Risk it, it's funny! Way off topic, but the image genuinely is SFW. The text - maybe not so much.

    --
    Ahh - My eye!
    The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  42. Re:Yes: INbreeding by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Editing in history appears for politically correct reasons.
    Editing in daily news appears for political reasons.
    Sometimes I understand why school loans aren't paid back in full.
    People only pay for the value of the accredited education.
    By now College should be damn near free and worth every penny.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!