Tibetans Inherited High-Altitude Gene From Ancient Human

sciencehabit writes A "superathlete" gene that helps Sherpas and other Tibetans breathe easy at high altitudes was inherited from an ancient species of human. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that the gene variant came from people known as Denisovans, who went extinct soon after they mated with the ancestors of Europeans and Asians about 40,000 years ago. This is the first time a version of a gene acquired from interbreeding with another type of human has been shown to help modern humans adapt to their environment.

Comments

Helpful Genes

[alzoron]

This is the first time a version of a gene acquired from interbreeding with another type of human has been shown to help modern humans adapt to their environment.

I'd have to say the genes for red hair were pretty damn helpful in making some of our women really attractive.

Re:Helpful Genes

[Anonymous Coward]

and crazy nutjobs.

Re:Helpful Genes

[davester666]

yeah, it's the same gene.

Re:Helpful Genes

[Anonymous Coward]

and crazy nutjobs.

Completely worth it during make up sex

Re:Helpful Genes

[Anonymous Coward]

not when you land in court.

Re:Helpful Genes

[Tablizer]

Who is to say some of the Neanderthal genes that have been found in humans are not "helpful"? How are they measuring "helpful adaptation"? Perhaps they mean the high-altitude features are clearly helpful, while the benefits of others are not known yet. (Maybe some of the top football players are the top because of Neanderthal genes.)

Re:Helpful Genes

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'd have to say the genes for red hair were pretty damn helpful in making some of our women really attractive.

The Scotch must have helped it, too.

Re:Helpful Genes

[philip.paradis]

You're doing it wrong. Yes, I speak from experience.

Re:Helpful Genes

[Charliemopps]

yeah, it's the same gene.

My wife's standing behind me with an icepick and wants me to say "No it's not"

Re:Helpful Genes

[Savage-Rabbit]

Who is to say some of the Neanderthal genes that have been found in humans are not "helpful"? How are they measuring "helpful adaptation"? Perhaps they mean the high-altitude features are clearly helpful, while the benefits of others are not known yet. (Maybe some of the top football players are the top because of Neanderthal genes.)

A significant number of those Neanderthal and Denisovan genes are thought to be very helpful. For example Neanderthal genes are thought to play an important part in the way skin works in modern Europeans/Asians/Native Americans/Australians (cold climate tolerance, resistance to some diseases, synthesis of vitamins). However, having strong suspicions that this is the case because a whole bunch of skin related DNA in these populations seems to have come from Neanderthals and Denisovians and suspecting that this DNA is important because Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA seems to have been 'selected out' of some other parts of the genome but is still there in the skin related regions of the genome is one thing. Proving it scientifically is a whole other matter. These guys simply managed to become the first to prove in a scientifically rigorous way the helpfulness of one of the numerous bits of Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA suspected to be beneficial. Now let's hope this stands up to peer review.

Re:Helpful Genes

[CrimsonAvenger]

(Maybe some of the top football players are the top because of Neanderthal genes.)

The myth of the supermuscular Neandertal is just that - a myth.

Last time I read anything on the subject (admittedly decades ago), a Neandertal in a modern suit would be almost (the "almost" being the shape and size of the nose, mostly) indistinguishable from a Homo Sapiens....

Re:Helpful Genes

[callmetheraven]

Who is to say some of the Neanderthal genes that have been found in humans are not "helpful"?

Take a look at Africa. I'd say they've been helpful.

Re:Helpful Genes

[Tablizer]

They've found a lot of broken and healed bones in Neanderthal skeletons, compared to Homo Sapiens. The implication is that they were more rugged than Sapiens, probably because they mostly depended on big game hunting.

Re:Helpful Genes

[cusco]

Sub-Saharan African groups don't have Neanderthal genes, unless they've interbred with non-Africans. Neanderthals were either never in Africa at all, or left it immediately and completely after branching off the rest of the human genetic tree.

Re:Helpful Genes

[flyingsquid]

They're both big-game hunters, but had a very different approach to it. Neanderthals had stabbing spears; they basically ran up to their prey and stabbed at it. The problem with this approach is that you have to get very close to the prey. It's hard to get close enough to a horse to kill it with a stabbing spear. It might be easier to get close to a slow-moving animal like a mammoth or wooly rhino, but then you face the problem that if it's in range of you, you're in range of the tusks/horns/feet. It's possible to kill large animals this way- saber-toothed cats did- but dangerous.

When Homo sapiens show up, they've got an entirely new technology- the atlatl, or spear-thrower. They can throw a dart 60 feet with enough force to impale a large animal. This means they don't need to get as close to strike. It also means that when they do strike, the prey can't hit back. The difference in build between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis seems to reflect this different hunting strategy. Neanderthals are short and stocky, like wrestlers. Homo sapiens are long and lanky, like basketball players. For the one, strength is key. For the other, speed, agility and long-distance throwing are key.

This may also explain the different effects that the two had on the fauna. When Neanderthals show up, we don't see any major extinctions. When Homo sapiens show up in Eurasia, we see the disappearance of mammoths, wooly rhinos, Irish elk, etc. The run-up-and-stab it hunting approach of Neanderthals wasn't that different from the hunting strategy of saber-toothed cats from the prey's standpoint. Raining sharp sticks of death down from dozens of meters away was radically different than anything the local fauna had ever faced before.

Re:Helpful Genes

[Tablizer]

When Homo sapiens show up, they've got an entirely new technology- the atlatl, or spear-thrower.

I believe these are relatively recent, perhaps after the Neanderthal's time. It's more likely Sapiens went after smaller animals like rabbits, and were scavengers, stealing game from wolves, hyena's, cougars, etc. using relatively weak spears or rocks.

Going after big game directly was probably not a common option at the time for Sapiens. Neanderthals specialized in big game, and this includes being able to be trampled and live.

Sapiens were omnivores, eating plants, insects, small animals, and big animals stolen from pack hunting animals. (There is evidence Neanderthals also ate variety, but big game was probably their main food.)

When Homo sapiens show up in Eurasia, we see the disappearance of mammoths, wooly rhinos, Irish elk, etc.

But that's relatively recent, when wide-range trade of better hunting materials and proto-civilization increased Sapien populations. It's the (later) larger populations and trading ability of humans that was the culprit.

Plus with a larger population, there's more likely to be humans who take the risk of hunting big game due to arrogance or not having other choices during droughts. If faced with starvation and death, I'd try to hunt a mammoth myself now, if they were around. I'd probably die trying, but many other fellow starvers would also try.

Large populations = greater mayhem during bad times.

Re:Helpful Genes

[Anonymous Coward]

I think (woosh) that was actually his point...

Re:Helpful Genes

[Reziac]

"...humans who take the risk of hunting big game due to arrogance..."

If you've got a family or a village to feed, and you have a choice, do you spear the elk or the rabbit? That's not arrogance; it's common sense.

Re:Helpful Genes

[slash0r]

Not sure natural selection helps. Ugly people still reproduce with each others.

Breeding with another humam?

[Nyder]

Wish I could get laid...

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Look closely at the men around you who have. You'll see all the bullshit 'compromises' they've had to make in order to get it, and even then, many of them still don't.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if they are alpha males.

Face it, human females have mate choice, and they only want to be with alphas. So the alphas get a ton of pussy and most males get none. The females, even ugly ones, typically can easily get laid, but men don't have this luxury.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you're on /., you are NOT an alpha. Lol.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you're on /., you are NOT an alpha. Lol.

Look, every time I come here, someone says "fuck beta." I figure it's the best shot I have.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I could get laid...

Log out. Its usually one of the more important steps.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I could get laid...

Log out. Its often one of the important steps on the way.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you're on /., you are NOT an alpha. Lol.

God loves you.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's true.. the alphas are the ones who were alphas in college are now the buttwipes I was talking about.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[KingOfBLASH]

Although this sounds like it is meant to be funny and not insightful, were it a serious comment:

"Getting laid" is a skill like programming, hitting a baseball, playing a musical instrument, or building things. While some people may be born with a natural talent, it is still something you can learn.

The first step is to get a bit more mature. You are not "getting laid" you are making love and if you come across as desperate for sex and only wanting one thing, you will not get anywhere.

The second step is to develop your social skills. As a snarky AC pointed out, that means logging off the computer and going out into the real world and learning to interact with people.

And the third step is to make sure you are desirable to people. No girl wants to mate with a neckbeard. You need to take care of yourself so she thinks you'll take care of her.

There are many books / courses / resources on this (so called PUA). Try Richard La Ruina's The Natural. He is a bit less skeevy than some of the others who focus in just on how you get your twig wet and actually focuses in on how you need to help yourself.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd add a "fourth step": understand that different women want different things - that women will typically decide whether to wear their good underwear (i.e. brand new Victoria's Secret lace versus worn out cotton granny panties) before they even go on the date with you - that they''ve already decided the "outcome" of the date before they've even spent time with you.

Some women, because of who they are, want a long hard night in the bedroom and as long as you come across as reasonably nice and not totally psycho then you're in. Other women, again because of who they are, just don't happen to want that and no matter how smooth you are you're not going to get anywhere. In short, it's not about you - it's about them. It's not about how great you are - whether you're "alpha" or whatever. It's about getting to know lots of different women until you eventually find one who wants the same thing you do.

And, yes, if what you want is mainly time in the bedrrom there are women who want that, too. But you mama may not approve of such women. So you may have to choose between making your mama happy and making yourself happy.

Anyway, there isn't some single perfect woman that all the men in the world are competing for - by trying to be more "alpha" or whatever. There's lots of different women in the world (billions, in fact) and the key is to find a woman that's a good match for you.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[KingOfBLASH]

Hehe. I think the "alpha" thing is and isn't a myth. You're right there's a certain type of woman that appeals to and some it doesn't.

But at the same time, a lot of it is conditioning. All their lives, women are taught they are sluts if they initiate. So they will go up right next to you in the bar, flash their eyelashes, and hope you start.

So if you are interested in getting with women, you do have to man up and learn to be the one who comes over and starts the conversation. Doesn't have to be fancy, can just be "hi," but as a man you must initiate.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Mashiki]

Hehe. I think the "alpha" thing is and isn't a myth. You're right there's a certain type of woman that appeals to and some it doesn't.

Pretty much true, being an asshole and unavailable though does seem to increase one's chances.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the fourth step is to ignore the advice from fools who make it sound like it's simple steps. They're lying, to keep you from being able to compete successfully with them, and even to get you to spend your money and give them prestige for providing you hope. It's kind of like passing the collection plate at church while people pray for rain: it doesn't *really* help that much, although the hope may keep you from climbing a tower and shooting up campuses.

Even Richard Stallman seems to get by with the "ask everyone, a few will say yes". Drives a lot of women nuts, but occasionally he scores.

Re: Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the Duck Dynasty guys seem to have done ok with neck beards...

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[KingOfBLASH]

It is and it isn't simple steps.

On the one hand, you can make a huge improvement quickly if you do some very simple things like shaving your neck beard, updating your wardrobe, and turning off the computer and going out to speed dating, singles night, or some place where you are guaranteed to meet women looking for a man. Put simply, you can't hunt for deer in the desert, and if you're not making the chance for yourself then it can't happen, ever.

On the other hand it can also be a lot of hard work. You may need to also start dieting and exercising, and really working on your social skills if it doesn't come naturally. In that case while we may be able to state a principle simply enough, it might require a lot of work. For instance, fit guys with six packs get more women, but to become one you can expect six months in the gym every day eating nothing but protein. Easy to say, hard to implement.

Pick up "gurus" who give you tips tend to fall into the latter category of easy to state but work to implement. For instance, they'll tell you to talk to women. This is true, as you simply cannot ever get anywhere with women if you can't even talk to them. But, some guys get very panicky, and this is a HUGE difficulty for them. The solution for this is to start small, and work up your social skills (maybe by learning to first meet new male friends so you don't feel like you need to set up a date or something).

Are they worth it? Dunno. Some people are able to figure out how to talk to women on our own. But I think if a guru, or a dating for dummies book, or another source helps you, you should take advantage.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've come to the wrong place, lad.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[callmetheraven]

And if you're on /., you are NOT an alpha.

So not true.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[QilessQi]

Not if they are alpha males.
Face it, human females have mate choice, and they only want to be with alphas. So the alphas get a ton of pussy and most males get none. The females, even ugly ones, typically can easily get laid, but men don't have this luxury.

First of all, a preferable term for "human females" is "women". Or, better still, "people". If you wan't to have a relationship with someone -- even if it's a purely physical relationship -- you're better off by not referring to them by species and gender as though you were an entomologist and they were some exotic variety of insect. Men are people. Women are people. And people have minds, souls, desires, and complexities.

Some people (of either gender) are primarily interested in physical relationships at this point in their lives, and some aren't. Some people are swayed by PUA strategies like negging, and some aren't. Most people, I would guess, want a sexual or romantic partner that they find physically attractive and enjoyable to be with... but those are highly variable qualities. You'd be amazed at what some people do and don't find attractive, when you scratch the surface. For example, sometimes a very wealthy and physically attractive person can immediately turn off a potential partner forever just by having a bitter personality or prejudiced attitudes.

If you're one of those people who's on a low end of the bell-shaped curve of attractiveness when it comes to looks, or height, or chest size, or hair, or wealth, or whatever it is you think would make you attractive to the people you'd like to date or sleep with... yeah, that sucks. I feel for you. Most of us have been there. 50% of the population is below-average by definition, and most of us are not media stars.

But your first step out of that hole is to stop thinking about how to become an "alpha" (whatever the heck you think that is) or lamenting that you aren't one. If you seriously want things to change, you have to find ways to relate to people honestly, regardless of their gender. You have to stop thinking of other people as your competitors or enemies -- especially if those people are ones you want to be in a relationship with.

Because those ugly thoughts will come out eventually. People have spent hundreds of thousands of years evolving finely-honed unconscious detectors for creepy behavior. And you don't want to be That Guy. Nobody likes That Guy.

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Greetings pot, I'd like to introduce you to someone, this is kettle...

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Anonymous Coward]

???
random pointless comment is random and pointless

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[Reziac]

One way to tell who is the "alpha" in an animal population, is that they're the one who NEVER has to "prove themselves". They just do their thing and expect the world to go well. They don't bully or beg, or solicit followers. Followers happen because the alpha provides security without risk. Alphas have initiative. They do things in life without seeking glory. They never worry about the pecking order. No one challenges their natural authority. They get along other alphas, too. They're sometimes mistaken for being "picked on" because they will graciously share their toys and food with underlings. But when they say jump, *everybody* jumps.

"Betas" have this need to constantly prove themselves. They tend to reject authority unless coerced. Since they're not true leaders, when they do find themselves in charge, they bully underlings (especially lower-level betas). They fight among themselves (but never with an alpha) and sometimes pick on the "nobodies". There's a spectrum from "Me tough, you dead" to the sort that constantly poke the lion from behind the safety of the fence. They cause the most trouble and they take the most risks. They don't share and may hoard resources. In a fight between two betas, the higher-status beta *always* wins. They are frequently mistaken for 'alphas' because of their aggression.

"Nobodies" are like alphas, but without the initiative. They have no clue socially. When there's a goal or a fight they're the ones who stand around going "Wha'happened?" and sometimes they make easy targets because they won't defend themselves. But they're easy to get along with, because they don't have an excessive need to perform for themselves or anyone else.

These types are inherited, not made or learned. And I've noted that my 'rules' apply pretty well across social predator species, including humans.

[I'm a pro dog trainer with 45 years experience, whence these observations.]

Re:Breeding with another humam?

[dgatwood]

"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard."

Oops. Wrong stage of evolution. We're not there yet.

Who's invasive then?

[SpaghettiPattern]

Could this be used to determine whether certain people are invasive? And they should leave on moral grounds. Or that they will face misery because of a gene they don't possess?

Re:Who's invasive then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. You are. GTFO.

No wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

came from people known as Denisovans, who went extinct soon after they mated with the ancestors of Europeans and Asians

Well no wonder they died, there isn't enough oxygen at those higher altitudes to sustain banging.

Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

The explanation of the evolution is terrible. If the gene was inherited from a "Denisovans" then that Denisovan didn't go extinct. His descendents are still among us. The gene did not spread through the population; the people who had the gene survived and people without the gene disappeared leaving more space for those survivors.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[dmbasso]

The explanation of the evolution is terrible. If the gene was inherited from a "Denisovans" then that Denisovan didn't go extinct. His descendents are still among us. The gene did not spread through the population; the people who had the gene survived and people without the gene disappeared leaving more space for those survivors.

Yes, the "people with the gene" were called Denisovans, they "disappeared", therefore they did go extinct. It seems you don't follow the logic of your own statements.

And just to make it even more clear: suppose I make dog with the tomato gene for photosynthesis (a solar powered dog, how cool is that), then kill every single tomato plant in the world with some Monsanto shit. It doesn't matter that my glorious green power efficient dog would carry the tomato gene... tomatos would still have gone extinct.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[tsa]

One gene does not make a species.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[antifoidulus]

By your logic then this morning what I saw rummaging through my garbage was a black dinosaur. However it wasn't nearly as scary as those dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. For starters it's roar sounded more like a "caw caw", and it was afraid of a broom....

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[catmistake]

I find the idea that Sherpas have a gene that helps them breathe at high altitude a little hard to accept. How long have the sherpas been up there carrying shit for rich European thrill seekers? Sure, they adapted to their environment... but couldn't this be a non-genetic adaptation? Have you seen how fast high-school and college swimmers can swim? Where does their fast swimming gene come from? Fish? Did high school and college students interbreed with fish a whole bunch of semesters ago?

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[dave420]

You seriously think they haven't thought of that? Why do you think yourself so intelligent and scientists so stupid? Is it mere arrogance?

Re: Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeeeeesss... Birds are dinosaurs, whats your point?

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

You get this completely wrong,

OP is saying, correctly, it was not another species. The reasoning is simple: If two living things interbreed and have an offspring that is capable of producing viable young the the first two creatures are the same species.

In your false argument splicing a gene is what happened, apparently you think a magic man in the sky found one species frollicking among the clouds, squished them up and took their cloud-dancing-ness and schmeared it into some random people. The two arguments could not be more opposed to one another.

The ancient species did not go extinct, they are we. Same goes for Neanderthals, they did not go extinct, they are we.

Put Crudely: If you can fuck something, and that fucking causes little fuckers who go on to fuck things which causes even more little fuckers then the first set of fuckers and fuckees are the same species.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[RockDoctor]

How long have the sherpas been up there carrying shit for rich European thrill seekers?

The Sherpas have been carrying shit for rich European thrill seekers since the early 1930s - say 3 generations. For the preceding 30-odd generations (and maybe considerably more) they've been living in the same regions carrying loads of fabrics and foodstuffs over the Himalayan ranges from the plains of India into Tibet during the early summer (after the winter snows melted), and then returning to the plains of India with loads of salt from the interior high-altitude deserts of Tibet to sell in India.

Oh, sorry, did I relieve your ignorance of the economies of interior Asia for the last (several) thousand years? My apologies - I'll let you continue in the dark in future.

It's not difficult to find these things out.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeap, if A gets down and funky with B, B has a baby B (B') be cause of getting busy with A, then B' goes on to have little B" then A & B are the same species. This does not mean that A and B(whole bunch of "'"s) are the same species but it does make it very much more likely. However if A and B(whole bunch of "'"s do the same deed that A & B did and it results in a fertile B(whole bunch of "'"s)+1' then A & B(whole bunch of "'"s)are the same species.

Note /. filters are pedantic and useless for trying to use real terms "'junk' characters" my ass ' means prime '' means second generation and so on they are not junk characters, but you(filter creators) are morons.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[dmbasso]

I haven't said Denisovans were a different species... you are aware that the word "extinction" is not limited to species right? If all Caucasians | Africans | Mongolians died, their population would be extinct. Their genes would still survive in other humans, and that doesn't make any difference to the fact they would be extinct.

And how the fuck did you read religious connotations in my post? I'm an atheist.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[I'm New Around Here]

And how the fuck did you read religious connotations in my post? I'm an atheist.

Because you said that thousands of years ago specific genes were transplanted from one group of people into another group of people. That first group then went extinct, leaving only those spliced genes as evidence.

Since we didn't have genetic splicing until a few years ago, the two choices left as possible genetic engineers are aliens and God. Take your pick.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[dmbasso]

Because you said that thousands of years ago specific genes were transplanted

No, I didn't say that. The example I gave was only to elucidate that a single gene (or even a bunch of them) doesn't define a population. I read my post again and the message still seems clear. But ok, I'll make it fucking transparent: suppose I write a book and copy an entire paragraph of Shakespeare's Hamlet, then proceed to burn every single copy of the aforementioned play. It doesn't matter that a paragraph continues to exist in another book, Hamlet went extinct.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally find it hilarious that you keep using arguments Ken Hamm (or some other creationist by using examples of a 3rd party copying data/ genetics. Also, I love your equivocation on the term extinct. Hamlet cannot go extinct by the usage of TFA, but you keep using it in a different manner. Perhaps if you were to use the same definitions as TFA and were to adjust your example to not have a Magic man/ alien/ creator/ god playing around with genetics you might be able to make your point.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[cusco]

Horsepuckey. Transposons (sp?) are chunks of DNA that get moved around between species by viruses and plasmids. It's actually quite common. We have many chunks of non-human and in fact non-primate genetic material in our DNA that was imported over the eons. I don't know how much of it is expressed as active genes and how much is just 'junk' DNA, I haven't read up on it for several years, but it's there.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, do not feed the trolls.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[I'm New Around Here]

You're right. I didn't think of that one, mainly because it seems quite coincidental that the one gene that got moved is the one that was needed by one particular group to live in the area they are living.

That was either the luckiest gene transplanting ever, or the smartest virus the world has ever seen.

Alternatively, it could be that the ancestors of the Sherpa people had sex with the other group. If so, and the other group has living descendants in the Sherpa people, are they really extinct? That is what dmbasso and some AC are arguing about.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the best example as birds are now classified as dinosaurs, so your statement is technically true.

A better one might be that Wolves are considered an endangered species in spite of there being overpopulation of Dogs.

Wolves can interbreed with dogs, but they're still classified separate species and dogs don't have to go extinct for wolves to go extinct.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[I'm New Around Here]

I answered dmbasso's question, and not only is it flagged Offtopic, but now you call me a troll.

Well, it just shows the ignorance of mods and ACs here on slashdot.

Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution.

[cusco]

You just implied that the only non-sexual method of gene migration was artificial, which isn't the case. Among some genera transplanted genes cause evolution to advance much faster than typical mutation rates would.
And yes, the Denesovians are extinct, whether they are a modern human subspecies or an entirely separate humanoid species (the answer to that will depend on which definition of 'species' you use). The African Hairless Dog and the Siamese Hairless Dog both survived into the late 19th century, late enough to be photographed. Being dogs they would have mated with any other canid that held still long enough so some of their genes are still going to be out there, but both breeds have been extinct for a century.

Neandertals and light skin

[Michael Woodhams]

There is another obvious point in history where such a gene transfer could have occurred. European conditions favour light skin, and Neandertals had been hanging out there for some tens of thousands of years before modern humans turned up and so had evolved light skin. These newcomers, having recent ancestry in Africa, were probably dark skinned. Interbreeding could easily have introduced the beneficial-to-European-conditions light skin mutations into the modern population.

My memory of the literature (which I have followed just a little bit, not closely) is that this did not happen - genetic analysis shows that modern Europeans and Neandertals acquired light skin through different mutations. However, Wikipedia says this is still under debate.

Re:Neandertals and light skin

[Anonymous Coward]

The bulk of the Neanderthal gene material is focused on immunity related sections of the modern human. They likely gave us the means of survival in a foreign biosphere that was Europe.

Re:Neandertals and light skin

[Michael Woodhams]

Immune system genes are often under balancing selection - i.e. the rarest alleles are favoured (until, due to this favouring, they cease to be rarest, then other alleles are favoured.) An infusion of new different alleles from Neandertals could be favoured simply because they are different, not because they are evolved to European conditions.

Testing between these hypotheses seems difficult. The 'balancing selection' hypothesis predicts that the genes will readily spread back into Africa, whereas the 'evolved for European conditions' predicts they will not. The problem is that you need some neutral mutations that arose in Europe at the same time as a 'control' for comparison purposes. I'm not sure how to identify such mutations, but I expect it could be done.

Re:Neandertals and light skin

[Anonymous Coward]

There is another obvious point in history where such a gene transfer could have occurred. European conditions favour light skin, and Neandertals had been hanging out there for some tens of thousands of years before modern humans turned up and so had evolved light skin. These newcomers, having recent ancestry in Africa, were probably dark skinned. Interbreeding could easily have introduced the beneficial-to-European-conditions light skin mutations into the modern population.

My memory of the literature (which I have followed just a little bit, not closely) is that this did not happen - genetic analysis shows that modern Europeans and Neandertals acquired light skin through different mutations. However, Wikipedia says this is still under debate.

It is worth noting that Asians, Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians also have this's DNA so it's probably better to say beneficial-to-cold-climate-conditions. It is also less likely to get one accused of bigotry since white supreme have (unfortunately) begun to use this as proof of their theories of European racial superiority.

Re:Neandertals and light skin

[Anonymous Coward]

For vitamin D production, it is. For protection against sunburns, it isn't.

Re:Neandertals and light skin

[T.E.D.]

Interbreeding...My memory of the literature (which I have followed just a little bit, not closely) is that this did not happen

That used to be the accepted position because genetic lineage studies used to be done exclusively with Mitochondrial DNA which is passed down only through the female line. What that showed was no interbreeding. In other words no female Neaderthal had any progeny in the gene pool for modern humans. The assumption always was that the mating patterns of males and females was enough alike that this alone is decisive.

However, we now have the capability to check Nuclear DNA, which comes from both parents. This shows there is indeed a fair amount of Neanderthal material floating around our genome. Presumably this came only from matings of Cro-Magnon women and Neaderthal males.

Re:Neandertals and light skin

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you deny that being light-skinned increases the production of vitamin D in regions with less sun irradiation? This is as racist as it's sexist to say that you need a uterus to bear children.

Re:Neandertals and light skin

[Anonymous Coward]

Sexist equivocator! All I need to bear children across the Himalayas is a willing Sherpa, it does not matter what gender the sherpa is, just that they can carry the child and any necessary kit for the child's survival.

Yes this post is intended to be a porq to the troll.

Translation: Ancient Alien Visited; Left Seed

[Anonymous Coward]

Von Dana Kihn had it right all along.

Re:Translation: Ancient Alien Visited; Left Seed

[Anonymous Coward]

No. He didn't.

Well, that proves it!

[American Patent Guy]

After all, if a story about interbreeding, genetics and extinction of humans appears on Slashdot, then it has to be true......

Re:Well, that proves it!

[itzly]

Only if accompanied by a suitable number of witty comments.

Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[mi]

inherited from an ancient species of human

One of the definitions of "species" states, that if two can breed and produce viable offspring (unlike, say, donkey and horse or lion and tiger, which produce sterile hybrids), then they are the same species...

Why are Denisovans considered different species, rather than simply a different race (or breed?) of the same Homo Sapiens?

Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[Tablizer]

Perhaps the viability rate of the offspring of cross-breeds is low. "Viability" is not necessarily a Boolean value. As two groups drift apart genetically, the success rate of mating gradually goes down. I'm not sure the definition requires 0.00000...% viability. But, most biologists don't get pedantic of over such and accept fuzzy boundaries of many concepts (until somebody sues over paternity or something).

Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[Anonymous Coward]

inherited from an ancient species of human

One of the definitions of "species" states, that if two can breed and produce viable offspring (unlike, say, donkey and horse or lion and tiger, which produce sterile hybrids), then they are the same species...

Why are Denisovans considered different species, rather than simply a different race (or breed?) of the same Homo Sapiens?

I have to admit that I am no zoologist. All the info I have I got from online sources

Some time ago I did some digging on the horse + donkey / lion+tiger interbreeding thing, while most of the offspring are sterile, there were some cases that the resulted offspring that were not sterile !

I guess that could be happening to the sapien + denisovan interbreeding program as well - with most offsprings sterile, but those which were not, went ahead and produce _their_ own offspring

Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[wisnoskij]

Except that it is not.

A lot of different species can interbreed, and a lot of animals in the same species cannot.

There are a huge varieties of dog breeds, many cannot viably mate unless through intermediate dog breeds.
Loads of birds rely of feather patterns to keep them uninterested why being perfect genetic matches for interbreeding.
The preponderance of evidence suggests that humans could interbreed with other great apes. We have done it in the past, hundreds of thousands of years ago, and some scientists have stated that there is a decent chance that it would work (the Nazi's got increadibly close to trying).

And yet I think all of these categorizations are correct. Dogs are all quite related and since there is a range there is no anyway sensible cutting point. They have to be the same species or we need a new word to call it. The birds do not naturally interbreed, the is the whole point of the feathers. And just because many of the great apes can interbreed does not make them one giant species.

At the end of the day "species" is a layman term and is used loosely and with great flexibility.

Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[drinkypoo]

There are a huge varieties of dog breeds, many cannot viably mate unless through intermediate dog breeds.

Clearly you've never seen a chihuahua humping everything in sight. Sure, the male has to be smaller, but it only takes one spermatozoa.

Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's just one of a number of conflicting definitions of "species". We don't call lions and tigers the same species either. Look up "species problem". It's not well defined what a species is exactly, it's just a construct we use to classify organisms. It still works because species are defined by scientific consensus, and once a species is named and described it's mostly clear whether an individual belongs to it. But there's not much essence to it. Btw some anthropologists speak of H. sapiens ssp. denisova.

Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[Rinikusu]

That's an outdated definition. Species is flexible in that regards.

Species A can breed with Species B and Species B can breed with Species C but species A can't breed with Species C. (and by breed, I mean produce fertile offspring). Rut Roh.

Remember that species is also a convenient moniker for what something is/was at a particular moment in time. Given enough time and isolation, perhaps our different human races could diverge enough to have similar issues with breeding. For Denisovans, they remained isolated enough to condense their gene pool (and add their own mutations) to be considered a distinct species, but still capable of interbreeding back into the main branch, so to speak. Hrm, there's gotta be a git analogy here that is too early for me to formulate.

Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because "species" categorization is largely arbitrary--i.e., made-up.

You will probably find clarity in realizing that, say, the entire Linnaean Taxonomy hierarchy has nothing to do with the with "how reality really is, we just observed and identified it," but rather "we made up a bunch of names and categories based on vaguely-defined general physical characteristics."

People readily take subjective statements as metaphysical truisms if somebody sciencey said it. No. Stop that.

Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[mackai]

From the article:

Either way, what is most interesting, Nielsen says, is that the results show that mating with other groups was an important source of beneficial genes in human evolution. “Modern humans didn’t wait for new mutations to adapt to a new environment,” he says. “They could pick up adaptive traits by interbreeding.”

I have a bit of issue with the notion of the source as "important". Useful perhaps. Maybe even "potentially important". The thing is that we don't know whether the alleged interbreeding produced many other variations that were undesirable - with high mortality rates so that they failed to survive multiple generations. It could even be that most of the offspring were still-born or sterile. That doesn't take away from it being an interesting conjecture to explain an unusual variation.

Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[radtea]

Why are Denisovans considered different species, rather than simply a different race (or breed?) of the same Homo Sapiens?

"Variety" is probably a better word than "race" or "species". The "biological species concept" is extremely poorly defined, which is a bit of an embarrassment for a field largely based on a book called "The Origin of Species".

Like all concepts, the boundaries of a "species" are fuzzy, and the only really precise dividing line is the attention of the knowing subject. In many cases this is unprobelmatic: almost any knowing subject looking at the same population would draw the edges between species in the same way. There are, however, many cases where different people will draw different edges for different purposes.

Again: this is no different from any other concept, although people who don't get out much will often insist that the edges they choose to draw by an act of selective attention are "real" and everyone else's are "wrong".

In the extreme case, in the plant world, ubiquitous hybridization results in populations that are practically all genetically unique individuals, and the species concept breaks down entirely.

Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[wisnoskij]

Well in general it is normally the opposite. Inner breeding between genetically similar individual produces genetically unstable offspring, making mongrels with some very different genes produces the more stable offspring.

Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES?

[cthulhu11]

Heck, in snakes hybrids across *genera* are known. What's really the difference between a population, a subspecies, a species, sometimes even a genus? I suspect that taxons are often enough more about someone publishing a paper than science.

Re:Great

[mi]

More ammunition for the Republicans to claim that another group of brown people isn't human.

Ku-Klux-Klan were Democrats, not Republicans.

"Extinct"?

[Tablizer]

If they bred with humans, technically they didn't go extinct: their genes live on, at least some of them. "Extinct" is perhaps not a Boolean value.

Re:"Extinct"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch out for the revenge of the turkey-saurus!

Re:"Extinct"?

[Tablizer]

I don't know how to classify it, but it was delicious!

Master Race

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we just need to cross breed Kenyan and Tibetan and we got ourselves a WINNER

Offspring of Denisovans

[Anonymous Coward]

If Tibetans inherit their genes from the Denisovans, which means that they are cousins to the Melanesians, who also inherit (some other) genes from the Denisovans

One group - the Tibetans, are on the left side of China while the other group, the Melanesians, on the right, and one curious thing is that according to the Chinese legend there was a great war in between 2 tribes, resulting one tribe which was defeated and ran away and the victors became the ancestors of the present day Chinese

Perhaps the Denisovans were the tribe which was defeated, and their offsprings split into two groupings - one went to the Tibetan highland while the other one sailed out to the sea and settled at the Melanesian island on the Western side of the Pacific Ocean

Make Love, Not War:

[Tablizer]

"Modern humans didn't wait for new mutations to adapt to a new environment," he says. "They could pick up adaptive traits by interbreeding."

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

The democrats of the day were the conservatives.

Hey, the Denisovans are back:

[Tablizer]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VG-L...

Basic questions

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Did they study this gene and all the systems of the human body that use genes to fully understand COMPLETELY and EXACTLY how it operates? In other words: Do they ACTUALLY KNOW what this gene does and all the side-effects its presence conveys with such certainty that if they had been given a sample of DNA with theis gene in it they could have worked from the other direction and said "Ah, the 'high altitude' gene...did this sample come from a Tibetan?" ----- Or is this yet another case of bioscience guys finding a statistical correlation between a gene and a particular human trait and then RUNNING to publish a paper, patent a gene, and start seeking more research money or investors?

2. Where's the proof that this is an abnormal trait inherited (like some sort of lotto win) by the Tibetans from ancient humans rather than being something lots of people had, but which most of our ancestors "lost". In other words: VERY few humans and ancient human ancestors died and got buried in ways that left remains for modern people to dig-up and study (some of our most famous evolutionary "links" are a half-dozen bone fragments... "Lucy" is about as famous as they get and is only 40% of ONE skeleton), so we're on REALLY "thin ground" here to play statistical games ---- where's the proof this was an additive "thing" rather than a subtractive one?

Re:Basic questions

[kanweg]

1. Is a sleight that's not worthy of a reply. Just a glance at TFA shows how much research went into it. And you think you can wave it away without any evidence.

2. Solve it by a process called thinking. Try this: Humans are spread all over the planet (Africa etc.). They'd all have to lose that very gene, except the Tibetans. Odds of that? Probably in the same order of magnitude as the likelihood that a person making statements of this caliber is convinced by reason.

Bert

Re:Great

[philip.paradis]

Here we have a fine example of an "undocumented poster" (to use fashionable left wing terminology) making sweeping and emotionally charged bullshit statements about a political party which he or she believes to be an ideological rival of his or her "favorite sports team." I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

For reference, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but I am fully in support of you going off to fuck yourself. Have a great day, you spineless little piece of shit.

Rookie mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape doesn't count as "make up sex".

Re:Great

[philip.paradis]

If you believe for one moment the KKK was ever or is still compromised of people who only identify with either of our nation's "favorite sports teams," you're severely in need of a bitchslap back into reality. How can you possibly be this stupid? Keep on supporting the status quo, you fucking idiot.

But, but... 'Race is a social construct'...

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL.

Not sure if joking or stupid

[FatLittleMonkey]

How long have the sherpas been up there carrying shit for rich European thrill seekers?

Atmospheric pressure, and hence oxygen content, at the height Tibetans have lived naturally for thousands of years is a bit over half that of sea-level. This story has nothing to do with climbing Everest.

Dangerous science

[Ilarih]

Well, I really think it should be race, even writing about different species might be dangerous. That could be really intresting but topic is a tabu.

The only safe route is to wrote that all people all almost same. In fact it would be intresting if people from really different race has problems get babies. But I fear event that is a bit dangerous subject. Only thing that I know for sure it that living as really diffent people is hard, that might have some effect.

Re:Dangerous science

[Kielistic]

Yes, let's censor science because somebody might get offended.

Re:Dangerous science

[Anonymous Coward]

I can assure you that it's not problematic at all for two humans of differing skin tone to have offspring. You say you find the topic very interesting, so I suggest you try it out for yourself.

Re:Dangerous science

[Nephandus]

Ironic, since you can't censor religion, despite explicitly intending to be violently offensive in many parts and smugly bigoted in most (of the surviving popular ones, natch).

Re:Great

[mcvos]

Ku-Klux-Klan were Democrats, not Republicans.

They certainly were, until FDR and later LBJ wanted to turn the Democrats into the civil rights party, and distanced the party from the racist southern democrats, after which Nixon decided that the Republicans should appeal to those southern former-democrats in order to gain more votes, and the parties basically switched position on this issue.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

51 of the 53 Dixicrats went back to the DNC, the GOP got 1 and a few years later got a second one. Notable ones sticking with the DNC are Robert Byrd, who personally ran a filibuster the Civil Rights act, and Al Gore Sr. Byrd was celebrated as a hero of the DNC a few years ago when he finally died.

So we have 96% of the racist Dixicrats going to the DNC, and 4% going to the GOP. In order to make your point you had to outright lie, but you just got called out on it.

Neandertals and light skin

[Anonymous Coward]

Light skin is beneficial? Racist motherfucker.

Re:Great

[mi]

Quote me Nixon or any other two prominent Republicans claiming anything remotely like "group of brown people isn't human". Put up or shut up, so to speak.

Re:Great

[RoccamOccam]

The democrats of the day were the conservatives.

Really? Robert Byrd had been an "Exalted Cyclops" in the Ku Klux Klan, yet still he was a Democrat Senator until his death in 2010. Byrd was a liberal and a great favorite of the Democrats.

Apparently, in 1944, Byrd wrote a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo refusing to join the military because he might have to serve alongside “race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wild.”

Helpful Genes

[cyberhooligan77]

Yes. Very attractive.

And, make men too much of a troublemakers ...

Re:Great

[callmetheraven]

That particular Democrat's full name was Lyndon "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years" B Johnson.

And I quote.

Mars Colonist Candidates???

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe their not alien, but they could be if they wanted.

Re:Great

[gstoddart]

Quote me Nixon or any other two prominent Republicans claiming anything remotely like "group of brown people isn't human".

Maybe not exactly that, but:

One of my favorite examples is when Saline, Kansas County Commissioner Jim Gile (R) used the term "nigger-rigging" in a public meeting. His morbidly hilarious apology didn't involve taking responsibility for his racism but, instead, he added, "I have built Habitat homes for colored people."

And then they followed it up with:

Yesterday, Dallas Tea Party activist Ken Emanuelson said, "I'm going to be real honest with you. The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote if they are going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats."

Or, how about the popular conservative commentator Ann Coulter refusing to fly with a black female pilot:

"Aw come on people, a black woman flying a plane? You know she got that job through affirmative action. Am I the only one worried about this? I mean hello? Our lives are at stake here..."

It probably isn't GOP policy, but there's no denying that people who wrap themselves up in that flag haven't done a very good job of distancing themselves from it. They certainly haven't said "we're going to kick any racist, bigoted bastards out of our party".

And, for a little variety, David Duke switched from being a Democrat to a Republican.

And this is what I turned up from Google in under 2 minutes.

Re:Great

[mi]

None of these quotes are signs, Republicans believe Blacks — or any other race — are inherently inferior. Every party would rather a constituent group, that overwhelmingly favors their opponents, didn't vote at all — be they seniors, White men, or pregnant Jews. That's just political calculus — not racism.

Ann Coulter was making a statement against affirmative action, even if it may have hurt the particular pilot's feelings. Affirmative action is racism — bigotry of lower expectations. Its proponents claim, that Blacks are inferior — because they can not succeed without special privileged treatment from the rest of the society. Ann's opposition to that makes her non-racist.

And, for a little variety, David Duke switched from being a Democrat to a Republican.

Mr. Duke may be a prominent racist, but he is not a prominent Republican...

And this is what I turned up from Google in under 2 minutes.

Yeah, keep trying.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

But, for some strange reason ... all of the racists and bigots are Republicans and not Democrats.

You can tell yourself that crap all you like, nobody but you believes it. Oh, and of course, the other bigots and racists in the Republican Party, the party which still defends the right to discriminate.

All Christian Downloads

[alchristiandownloads]

This site is pretty new for all christian stuff. Go to this site and see what is going on here for updates. This Site contains all language christian songs,videos,movies,wallpapers like chinese, japanese,australian,indian,american,telugu,malayalam,tamil etc. follow this link http://allchristiandownloads.b...

Re:Great

[gstoddart]

Yeah, keep trying.

No problem.

How about this If Republicans don't like being called racists, they can stop behaving like racists:

Not all Republicans are racists, but the party is permeated with racists, it is saturated with racists. Its racist policies must be read in the context of that saturation.

Republican former governor and apparently perpetual Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's refusal to accept that the nation's first black president wasn't born in Africa.

Republican former senator and apparently perpetual Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum's racist welfare rant.

Republican governor and apparently perpetual presidential candidate Rick Perry's refusal to criticize the racist rant that has other Republicans scurrying to jump ship on the deadbeat social welfare rancher they and Perry had been defending. But then Perry and racism and ranching are nothing new.

Republican senator and all-but-announced presidential candidate Rand Paul's curious habit of associating with white supremacists.

Republican former vice-presidential nominee, current Congressman and potential presidential candidate Paul Ryan's inner city problems.

Apparently perpetual Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. There's not much more that needs be said than Donald Trump. Forever Donald Trump. Perpetually Donald Trump. A real estate magnate in search of a hinge Donald Trump.

Republican former vice-presidential nominee andâ"as long as it keeps her in the general vicinity of a spotlight, any spotlightâ"apparently perpetual pretend potential presidential candidate Sarah Palin... Okay... Just ick.

Republican former Gov. George Allen's clumsy, casual racism that derailed what could have been his own perpetual presidential ambitions.

Republican former governor (and potential future resident of a different form of public housing) Bob McDonnell's fond memories of the Confederacy.

Republican former speaker of the House, former presidential candidate and current CNN TV pundit Newt Gingrich ever and always being Newt Gingrich.

The blithe and lunatic Islamophobia of Republican former Congressman and current Fox "News" contributor Allen West.

The Republican National Committee running a racist ad on behalf of soon-to-be Sen. Bob Corker.

Republican former governor and former Republican Governors Association Chair Haley Barbour's amnesia about the brutality of the Civil Rights era, and fond memories of extreme racists.

Republican Gov. Nikki Haley slowly coming to realize that it wasn't a good idea to have a white supremacist on her campaign steering committee.

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, whose long history on the wrong side of history continues to defy history.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker's staff circulating a racist email.

Republican Rep. Steve King's special insights about immigrants from the south.

Republican Rep. Peter King's medievalist crusade against Arab and Muslim Americans.

Republican Rep. Devin Nunes rationalizing and excusing bigoted extremism.

Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland calling the nation's first African-American president "uppity."

Republican Rep. Geoff Davi

Re:Great

[mi]

DailyKos? Seriously? You should've used "Pravda" newspaper... Sorry, I don't take any of that seriously — not that there is much to take. Not accepting Obama's birthplace at facevalue is not racist, no sir — the whole thing about his birth certificate was fishy. And that he ended up posting a scan of notarized copy — rather than original keeps it suspect.

And where Kos claim, that National Review provides "bullhorn to racists" — that is simply an empty accusation.

links within them pointing out these very prominent Republicans doing this stuff.

Doing what stuff? Instead of posting a link to some links to empty accusations, why don't you pick two or three, that you can defend?

Or are you going to try to redefine racism again?

"Again"? I've always defined it as sincerely held belief, that certain race(s) is (are) superior to other(s).

Weather Prediction Gene

[lazy genes]

I win sports handicapping contests by using only weather variables to predict if a home team is going to win or lose. I have been doing this for several years. I won the NFL contest the last 2 years in a row, beating over 200 other contestants for the $1000 prize and I am the top MLB handicapper for the last three contests that I have entered. I believe that there is a gene that hunter gatherers depended on to warn them of poor weather conditions. I find certain weather conditions make the home team preform differently than the away team. So if bad weather is in the area the home team is not as productive (lazy and tired) and lose more often. This would help the hunter gatherer by subconsciously keeping him home if bad weather was coming in the near future and it would make the away team more alert so they could have the energy to get shelter.

try again, Bert

[Anonymous Coward]

Labelling #1 a "sleight" was a convenient way of dodging a fact: NOBODY yet understands completely how genetic mechanisms work so completely that, given some genetic material, they can examine it and tell you all about what the result will be. The current understanding is still so limited that the best anybody can do is say "we observe the presence of gene {insert ID here} and that's associated with {a higher risk of disease X} or {blue eyes} and so-forth. This is FUNDAMENTALLY different from saying "we see that gene and we know the body will use it in the following ways, which will have the following results...".

The first form of "knowing" something is a game of statistics and observed correllations (which, in science, often turn out to be wrong over the passage of decades with much more research) and the second form of "knowing" is NOT statistics; it's ACTUAL UNDERSTANDING and is FAR more useful.

Your second comment is equally dumb. Solve it by thinking? Really? I think you need to try your own prescription. Again, I was pointing out that statistical analysis is pretty shakey when used in a system with VERY FEW samples. I work in aerospace and people die if I screw up. If you have flown frequently your life probably depended on me at one point or another. I DO THINK, very hard and I take my work and that of my colleagues so seriously that I take things like statistical analysis very seriously. In my field, you cannot get away with the sort of lazy projections that people in other fields (where nothing of value other than possible a reasearch grant must be on the line) seem to routinely get away with. Given that background, I posted two basic questions, NOT to get an ignorant RANT reply by somebody probably sitting in mommy's basement and grinding some ideological fanboy axe, but to raise genuine questions relative to the information without wasting time getting too bogged-down in esoterics as would likely happen for a person contacting the article's author (I'm interested, but not THAT interested (grin)).

Re:Great

[mi]

all of the racists and bigots are Republicans and not Democrats.

List me three names — with proof for each...

the only thing it tells me

[Anonymous Coward]

is that i should avoid mating with the ancestors of europeans and asians

Re:Great

[romons]

51 of the 53 Dixicrats went back to the DNC, the GOP got 1 and a few years later got a second one. Notable ones sticking with the DNC are Robert Byrd, who personally ran a filibuster the Civil Rights act, and Al Gore Sr. Byrd was celebrated as a hero of the DNC a few years ago when he finally died.

So we have 96% of the racist Dixicrats going to the DNC, and 4% going to the GOP. In order to make your point you had to outright lie, but you just got called out on it.

More information