Our Hidden Neanderthal DNA May Increase Risk of Allergies, Depression (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes: Depressed? Your inner Neanderthal may be to blame. Modern humans met and mated with these archaic people in Europe or Asia about 50,000 years ago, and researchers have long suspected that genes picked up in these trysts might be shaping health and well-being today. Now, a study in the current issue of Science details their impact. It uses a powerful new method for scanning the electronic health records of 28,000 Americans to show that some Neanderthal gene variants today can raise the risk of depression, skin lesions, blood clots, and other disorders.

Comments

Is there a greater risk of micropenis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone tell me if there's also a greater risk of suffering from micropenis? I urgently need to know!

Re:Is there a greater risk of micropenis?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am 3.7% Neanderthal (top 99th percentile).

There does not seem to be an increased risk of micropenis, but penile elephantitis seems to be a risk.

Re: Is there a greater risk of micropenis?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're supposed to compare it to non-hybrid modern humans (blacks from Africa), not lesser primates

Re:Is there a greater risk of micropenis?

[arth1]

I am 3.7% Neanderthal (top 99th percentile).

Given that H.S.Sapiens and H. (S.) Neanderthalensis share 98.5% of the genetic material, it would be difficult to be more than 2.5%,or less than 98.5%, depending on how you see it.

What you probably mean is that you have 3.7% of the genetic markers that have so far been identified as being inherited from Neanderthals. Which is a completely different thing from being 3.7% Neanderthal.

I haven't tested my DNA, as there are large privacy concerns with the available testers (none I have found agree to destroying the test and all results except what they send you), but given that I have a large head, big joints, gap behind my wisdom teeth, and hail from where the largest concentration of Neanderthal-inherited DNA is, it wouldn't surprise me if it's up there.
I'm okay with that - it's part of being human.

Re:Is there a greater risk of micropenis?

[KGIII]

I'd love to have my DNA tested but, so far, I've not found anyone willing to do it and ensure my privacy is kept. No, you may not assign my DNA a number and throw it in with others without asking. If you ask, I'll say yes. But you may not do it without asking.

That said, it's probably likely that my DNA has already made it out into a test somewhere. I'm sure it got anonymized and sold. You give a blood sample when you enlist. You give a blood sample when you skip a few years and then reenlist. The samples get frozen and stored after getting your blood-type, or so they were. I'm guessing they either grab DNA and run it from all of them, for ID purposes in case of trouble, or that they store them for when they might need to do so.

I'm not so silly as to believe that they'd take my perfectly fine blood sample and throw it out. There wasn't much to do with it back then but they were working on it, it was 1986 when I came home. I mean, it's a perfectly good, preserved, sample and I'm betting they're not worried about room. I strongly suspect they've since run it through the machine and done what they could. I know that blood's not actually the best source of DNA but it works. I don't recall them taking any tissue samples? I wonder if they take tissue samples now? Note to self: Ask a friend. It's easy for 'em to swab a cheek.

At any rate... Anyone else think of the Dr. Demento Show? I hope I'm not the only one... I don't remember who sang it?

"I'm a Neanderthal boy, you're a Neanderthal girl,
Let's make Neanderthal love, in this Neanderthal world."

Hmm... I went and found you the song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Where's Pope at? Heh... He'll get a kick out of that reference.

Re:Is there a greater risk of micropenis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those blood samples from the military are actually stored, essentially forever. They would use it as a reference to identify your body (if you died in war, with missing id, etc.), or as part of a record of what diseases you were exposed to to help them track down where a disease came from (once we late become aware of it (such samples were key in tracing the history of HIV)). In all liklihood, nobody has looked at your sample of blood since the time it was put into the archive and so it is unlikely for the DNA it contains to have been sequenced.

Re:Is there a greater risk of micropenis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that primates share 98% DNA already, it is hard to say if you are more primate than no...

The problem with you is the same as with article. It is unscientific, but wants to be perceived as it is, because, you see - it is not enough to have science in name...

My main concern with this article is this:
"Neanderthal may be to blame. Modern humans met and mated with these archaic people in Europe or Asia"
----------------
Because:
1. Modern humans did not mate with Neanderthals. NOPE. NO WAY. Because modern humans became modern, after they mated with other humans, including Neanderthals. Because I don't know about author of article, but there would be enough modern humans, who would like to mate - even if cloned Neanderthal. And that, ladies and gents would count for the first time in history when modern humans would mate with neanderthals... :D :D :D :D :D :D LOL you still have time to make history!
2. Archaic Homo Sapiens mated with more advanced Neanderthals. Homo Sapiens by definition could not be more advanced as neanderthals, because you see - Neanderthals branched off of whatever version of humans, that were living in Africa before and went to other places and gained new gene mutations(they also had bigger brains than modern humans because of that), while Homo Sapiens were incubating and did not change much - that is by definition archaic: something that doesn't change.
The only modern pure evolved Homo Sapiens are bantu speaking Y-DNA haplogroup E people in Africa... and if you compare what diseases(or rather what defence mechanisms they do not have), you'll shut up about any side effects, that come from having some neanderthal DNA.
3. Currently most archaic(also Homo Sapiens) living people are those, that are represented by Y-DNA haplogroup A - they are most archaic and they represent most closely that version of humans, that went out of Africa, before mixing with other braches of humans, like Denisovans or Neanderthals. Btw, pygmies and similar people with Y-DNA haplogroup B are not pure Homo Sapiens as well, because they also have some genes from other non Homo Sapien group, that dwelled in Africa.
4. All non Africans have inherited some parts of Neanderthal genes. Another known group Denivosians were result of some unknown nonHomo Sapien group with Neanderthals before Homo Sapiens arrived there and started to stick their... ahem, mate :)~~~~

Re: Is there a greater risk of micropenis?

[Anonymous Coward]

You consider AFRICANS HUMAN? They are lesser primate insects, and do not say no unless you were raised African-free then have been leaving among them for years. I also have trouble with Neanderthals (troglodytes), so many I have a collection of first person pictures.

Uuhg!

[Mr D from 63]

Me Sad

Re:Uuhg!

[Tablizer]

Me Sad

Don't worry, you'll feel better after bashing a mammoth in the head with a large club. That always cheers me up.

Re:Uuhg!

[nytes]

Me help you.

*shoots Mr D in head with woolly mammoth bone*

How to handle unsanitary behavior

[russotto]

"Hey, cover your mouth when you sneeze, you Neandertal!"

Re:How to handle unsanitary behavior

[Freshly Exhumed]

Oh great, here come all the Denisovan fanbois!

Pure bloods... we must cleanse this

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, chime in the geneticists who propose cleansing the world of neanderthal DNA via eugenics ;)

Re: Pure bloods... we must cleanse this

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they just propose the rule of " progressive ideas" over you gullible 10 percent neanderthalics.

in other words they want to complete the half job of 2008.

Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been around a bit and lived abroad in more than one occasion and it baffles me how sickly Americans are compared to the rest of the world.
I never have seen people allergic to food other than in the US. If the issue was Neanderthal DNA wouldn't Europeans be just as bad if not worst than Americans?

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been around a bit and lived abroad in more than one occasion and it baffles me how sickly Americans are compared to the rest of the world.
I never have seen people allergic to food other than in the US. If the issue was Neanderthal DNA wouldn't Europeans be just as bad if not worst than Americans?

Easy answer: America is quite prone to "food hypochondria."

Example: In some cultures, insects are a tasty snack. In America, "ZOMG, time to sue someone a cricket is in my soup! I'm going to be sick."

If you believe hard enough that someone will make you sick or that you are allergic to it, you'll probably do a top notch job of convincing yourself you are sick.

Example 2: European "Mett." (also Zwiebelmett, etc) Eating raw pork?!? Are you insane? Apparently, some parts of the world think nothing of it. In America, this would ignite a shitstorm of epic proportions if Chipotle started serving it. Nevermind that it gets eaten all the time in some parts of Europe.

People would prompty invent cases of sickness. Anyone who picked up e. coli or trichinosis would immediately blame Chipotle for serving mettigel.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Opportunist]

It's more than that. It's not just food hysteria, there are people who do get incredibly sick from certain foods. Peanut allergies, anyone? These people don't imagine swelling up and clogging their wind pipes.

Until recently, this kind of sickness was unheard of in Europe. There was no such thing as a peanut allergy. Now we got that, too.

We get sicker and sicker. And I wonder why. What is it that lets our bodies go apeshit over food?

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

lack of exposition to real pathogen in child hood

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[alzoron]

There's also the fact that until relatively recently people that were deathly allergic to things like peanuts either never had the opportunity to eat peanuts or typically died pretty early due to medical knowledge not being as advanced as it is now.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Gavagai80]

Until recently there were no carefully certified allergy-safe foods, and no ambulances to rush people to the non-existent emergency room where there were no medical procedures to help. People with peanut allergies probably died quickly as children.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[solartear]

Peanuts were found in the new world, and do not grow in Europe, so there would be no sickness from them until they were heavily imported after the Americas were discovered. After being introduced, many people may have died without it being diagnosed as "peanut allergy". Only recently have we gotten a lot better about keeping people alive who would have quickly died 1 or 2 hundred years ago.

Though I did read an article recently about babies not being exposed to enough 'things' was causing them to be more vulnerable to related things as they grew older, including peanut products.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't Americans eat raw meat? I often eat (once a week) bread with Filet Americain which means American Filet and it's just raw meat with some flavors. I always thought it was an American traditional food despite its French name.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[rtb61]

Perhaps Neanderthal types just need more sleep. You know the further north you go the longer the nights are and hence evolutionary adoption to longer sleep periods. Not to forget, this whole work to make other people richer ethic is still pretty new evolutionary speaking, this versus hunting the morning for a bit, eating a bunch, snoozing a bit futzing about a bit with you stone tools and weapons in the afternoon, chatting around the fire in the early evening than nookie and sleep pretty early in the night. Wake up with the birds (pre-dawn ie bright sky sun still beyond horizon), rinse, well, no rinse unless the is a pool nearby and repeat, maybe much on some leftovers first, something like a 2 to 4 hour work day. Then a bunch of psychos got greedy and demanded the rest do their work as well and build edifices to worship their superiority because that will publicly torture you to death 'er' 'no wait because they were selected by the Gods, yeah that's right, they were the Gods chosen, so you should worship them and call them royalty. Perhaps it is not the genes on their own as much as those people did not evolve to become working in poverty slaves and that is an unhealthy life style and super fucking depressing.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[allcoolnameswheretak]

That has probably to do with the fact that in the US most people consume processed foods almost exclusively.
And thanks to radical, free capitalism there are almost no regulations on what kind of shit to put in there, so your food is stuffed with stabilizers, preservatives, flavors, colorants, antibiotics, emulsifying agents, sugar, salt, caffeine, and cojones extract of mutant cows from outer space.

So once your eat normal food from mother nature, your immune system goes bonkers. If it doesn't contain any of those chemicals you're used to, it must be poison!

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Pax681]

It's more than that. It's not just food hysteria, there are people who do get incredibly sick from certain foods. Peanut allergies, anyone? These people don't imagine swelling up and clogging their wind pipes.

Until recently, this kind of sickness was unheard of in Europe. There was no such thing as a peanut allergy. Now we got that, too.

We get sicker and sicker. And I wonder why. What is it that lets our bodies go apeshit over food?

My cousin and his father(uncle via marriage) both have severe(anaphylactic) peanut allergies. the son was born in 1968. the father in the 40's.
I was born in the 70's and i have a severe(anaphylactic) reaction to sheep meat. My mother severe reaction to strawberries... i know plenty of other people with them too, all from my age range but also older and younger.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Applehu Akbar]

"Example: In some cultures, insects are a tasty snack. In America, "ZOMG, time to sue someone a cricket is in my soup!"
I have tried these, and they're actually pretty good. Also carried at Whole Paycheck.

http://smile.amazon.com/Chapul...

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe hard enough that someone will make you sick or that you are allergic to it, you'll probably do a top notch job of convincing yourself you are sick.

Sadly food allergy is real and can be identified medically, either through blood samples or direct exposure (usually on the skin). There are also horror stories about "accidental blind tests" where the allergic reaction kicks in and that is how mistakes in the kitchen is discovered, like "oh, I used the wrong one". Some people have severe allergies. Particular nut allergy is usually severe. The throat swells quickly, blocks the air flow and the person dies, possibly within 10 minutes of eating. This is why peanuts warns that it contains nuts, even though it should be pretty clear.

Having said that, plenty of people don't get what food allergy is and confuses it with dislike for food. The newspaper mentioned somebody finding an 6 year old happy meal the other day. Not wanting to see that one isn't allergy, nor is getting sick from eating it. The fact that some people might have a made up allergy doesn't change the fact that real clinical allergy exist.

Back in the 80s medical science in this field wasn't as advanced and the testing approach was to remove all the common suspects from the diet, wait for the patient to get well and then try one at a time to see the reaction. Without doing this approach with blindtest, the risk of mental "noise" was present, but it has fallen out of use as proper medial tests have been developed and the talk about it being mental should likewise fall out of use.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Mike Van Pelt]

I suspect the "An idle immune system is the Devil's workshop" theory. All this crazy-clean germicidal-everything living in a Lysol bubble has left our immune systems with nothing to do but cultivate paranoia.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[LunaticTippy]

This is quite humorous! Americans eat raw meat. The dish you describe we call "Steak Tartare" - so it appears French attribute raw beef to Americans and Americans attribute it to the french.

And, what we call French fries are Belgian, so I am told.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

That has probably to do with the fact that in the US most people consume processed foods almost exclusively.
And thanks to radical, free capitalism there are almost no regulations on what kind of shit to put in there, so your food is stuffed with stabilizers, preservatives, flavors, colorants, antibiotics, emulsifying agents, sugar, salt, caffeine, and cojones extract of mutant cows from outer space.

So once your eat normal food from mother nature, your immune system goes bonkers. If it doesn't contain any of those chemicals you're used to, it must be poison!

>>And thanks to radical, free capitalism

Umm you mean corporatism. You mean our FDA and USDA that will call organic stuff poison kill pigs of our free range farmers?

Sir you have no clue. Only capitalism we might get is at a farmers market and those are rare, seasonal and under increasing attack from state and federal regulators.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[kbahey]

You are basically right, but you made the jump too fast in the timeline ...

Theory has it that hunters and gatherers were egalitarians, with each member doing his share, and no real hierarchy. The work day was like you said.

But then, humans moved from hunting/gathering subsistence, to farming. Farming led to villages, and villages led to towns, and towns led to a division of labor, and that led to social stratification, with the priests and kings at the top, aristocracy next, merchants next, and then the laborers ...

And that is what led to feudalism, and now the same is happening with corporatism.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

One cause of allergies is excessive cleanliness.
Sanitizing everything for children leads to under developed immune systems.

Let your kids play outside in the dirt.
Stop overusing anti-bacterial cleaning products.
Let them pick up the cookie they dropped on the carpet and continue eating it.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a kid, you could send your kids to kindergarten with a peanut butter sandwich. Banned now in kindergartens (3 and 4 year olds) and creches (1 and 2 year olds). Frowned upon in schools.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

Further from the equator the longer the nights in winter but they're shorted in summer.
A few months ago in the southern hemisphere sunset was 9pm and sunrise 6am. That's 9 hours night, 15 hours day. Add duck and dawn to that, which is longer as well, you get very short nights.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Opportunist]

Erh... with "recently" I mean "until the last decade or two", not "until the last century or two".

The older ones here might remember that we could tell the signs of allergies even in the last century.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Opportunist]

What keeps me happy is that I do remember from history class how feudalism was dealt with in the end.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[arth1]

My cousin and his father(uncle via marriage)

This must be in the Appalachians.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[arth1]

Add duck and dawn to that, which is longer as well, you get very short nights.

On the other hand, you get very long ducks.

 

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[arth1]

This is quite humorous! Americans eat raw meat.

Yes, but only beef. Never pork, lamb, goat, horse or any other meats. Certainly not poultry, as the US seems to be able to keep salmonella out of their poultry production. (Which is why Spaghetti Carbonara is almost never made with raw eggs in the US, and don't get me started on the atrocity called egg nogg over here),
And most Americans would never venture past beef, pork, chicken and turkey anyhow. Sometimes fish, if it's breaded thickly enough, fried, and with enough lemon on it that you couldn't tell it from tofu.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[whoever57]

Perhaps Neanderthal types just need more sleep. You know the further north you go the longer the nights are

*I* know no such thing. I know that the nights are longer in Winter, but *shorter* in Summer.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Pax681]

nope ,Scotland

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

This calls for a reread of industrial society and its future!

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never heard of Sushi have you?

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm American (I live in South America) and I eat sashimi (raw fish) on a regular basis (at home, not in a restaurant).

It must be well spiced because the taste of the fish itself is quite subtle.

For personal preferences (not religion), I don't eat raw meat -- found here as Carpaccio and Raw Kibbeh (Kibbeh Nayyeh).

I use to eat raw eggs as a kid, in a recipe similar to eggnogg, but without alcohol or milk, just a raw yolk with lots and lots of sugar. We don't do that anymore for fear of Salmonella. If I ever get Salmonella-free certified eggs one day, I may do it again. It was done to be smeared on bread at breakfast.

Re: Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be why the EU had the best allergen labeling laws in the world.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the further north you go the longer the nights are and hence evolutionary adoption to longer sleep periods.

They didn't live on the north pole. They lived during the ice age, which mean northern Europe was covered by a gigantic glacier. It stopped somewhere in Germany meaning the neandertal would not be further north than say max as London, if they even got that far north. They went as far south as Gibraltar, effectively populating all of the non-ice covered Europe. The shortest day of the year they would have experienced would not be shorter than 8 hours or something like that.

Another effect appears when you go far north. The sun's position is closer to the horizon during the night and it doesn't become as dark as say Africa or continental US. Neandertal "nightlife" is quite possible and for all we know, they hunted during the night. We know they hunted with spears and that they did not throw them. Instead it seems that they sneaked up on pray undetected and made surprise attacks. We do not know if they tried to use the cover of darkness to do that.

Another thing is darkness isn't the same as sleeping time. Iceland lies almost on top of the polar circle (70 meters from it) and in some places the sun will not be high enough to shine over the mountains for a month or two. However people didn't sleep that long. Instead they ended up with the tradition of sitting together by the fire and tell stories, which is part of the reason why the sagas survived. They also did all the tasks they could do indoor, which prepared for the next summer. I see no reason why neandertals wouldn't do something similar. All research indicates that they were able to speak with each other just as well as we are (verbally, not writing online).

something like a 2 to 4 hour work day.

Highly unlikely. Preparing food and cooking it could easily take more time than that. They used tar to glue their weapons together and they extracted that from trees. However we have no idea how they did that because experimentation reveals that it can be done, but the best rate we have recreated makes it such a slow process that doing it 24 hours a day would be way too slow for their need. They also needed tools and cloth and at some point they started making necklaces as well.

I think they worked for many hours each day. However at the same time I don't think they viewed themselves as slave labor like some people do today. They didn't question if it should be done because all they did was for their own benefit and survival. Also it's not unlikely they could enjoy quite a number of their tasks like some people enjoy their hobbies today, even though some of them are hard work.

Having said all this, the point about people ruling people and depression still stands. It is assumed that neandertals lived in groups of around 8 individuals. Modern humans in groups of up to 20 individuals, though research tells that young children can keep track of 12 people, which hints that this was the group size at some point as well. One homo heidelbergensis (neandertal ancestor) tribe has been found to have 3 houses/tents with room for 6 people in each, indicating a group size of 18. This mean it would be fair to assume we have brains optimized for 8-20 people in the decision process. Say you are in a group of 12 people and one of them decides "you should not get any food", it becomes a topic for the group, you have something to say and if needed, you can start a fight remake that decision. Today if your boss says you are fired, which is the modern version of "you don't get money to buy food", you can't object. Your group of 200 workers will not help you because they don't want to risk being fired and if you start a fight over the issue, you go to jail (though at least that will provide food). It is very likely that it is mentally unhealthy to be affected by decisions of other people where you are unable to provide feedback.

The question is if this really should be read as "listen to me or I will get a depression" gene? Somehow I find that a bit farfetched to blame it all on a single gene. We do after all have quite a lot of genes and we should be careful to assume way too much from a single one.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[DNS-and-BIND]

You realize that today even the poorest of the poor live like kings compared to Neanderthals? What were gay rights like under Neanderthal rule? How about women's liberation? Yeah, that's what I thought. Another left-wing fanatic who who won't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[KGIII]

Or is our diagnostics getting better and we've more variety than we've had in the past?

I'm still scrolling down through the thread. I wonder if anyone will be *seriously* blaming inoculations, fluoride, or antibiotics. I'd not be surprised.

Re: Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

BS peanuts grow naturally in Africa, not in the new world

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[HornWumpus]

Is that anything like Saigon beef salad or Beef Carpacio?

Americans eat raw beef from a variety of cuisines.

The American version is 'Steak, extra rare.' Which basically means 'Heat the meat to the body temperature of a live cow, then shine a flashlight on both sides and call it cooked'.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[HornWumpus]

Any single egg has small chances of having Salmonella. It's only at industrial scale, when they are cracking a gross of eggs at a time to make stuff that it's a problem. Especially as that sauce is sure to sit. Even there you weren't likely to get sick.

Not sure about where you live, so YMMV.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

"You realize that today even the poorest of the poor live like kings compared to Neanderthals?"

In terms of stuff? Yes.

In terms of freedom over your time? No.

In terms of relating to each? No.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Hognoxious]

This is why peanuts warns that it contains nuts

Except peanuts aren't nuts. From a scientific POV the archaic term "goober peas" is more accurate.

Lots of things have warnings that they may contain nuts. This is due to potential cross-contamination during processing.

Re: Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

some people say the french revolution was just another trick of the banksters who financed the french king before. also note that three is half of six.

Re: Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

bingo. kids should eat sand from the sandbox. mommies should not use antibacterial cleaning agents.

but you know what ? femi nazi mommies are dumb as hell.

Re: Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

in other words, people are wasting time on schools longer than ever, but they are not taught the very basic facts of proper behaviour in pregnancy and chil raising. differential analysis is more important, ya know.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Peanuts originate in South America, and were grown in large quantity in some colonies for their oil, which was used as lamp oil. The peanut pulp left after oil extraction was fed to slaves at plantations, an ended up being an essential ingredient in some former (SE Asian, South American, African) colony cuisines. Surely no child over there with peanut allergy would have survived. Only in the 20th century, after the discovery of other sources of oil, they came to be considered mainly food, and in the 1970s there was am major expansion of peanut cultivation for the US and European market. In the meantime the transportation industry globalized, and the risk of cross-contamination with other products shipped in the same carriers became a major issue. So before the 70s peanut allergy was rarely observed, and peanuts were easy to avoid if you knew you had the allergy.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

It was rebranded to 'Capitalism'.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Gilgaron]

Also once you stop eating raw meat and develop sanitary sewers, parasitism goes down. This is mostly good, but parasites tend to release immunosuppressants. So, no worms chewing your organs, but your immune system is more active and cranky than the wild-type that you evolved with would have ended up at with all the worms. So you see more auto-immune disorders than the folks eating raw chickens standing in pig excrement. On the plus side you get to live long enough to die of cancer instead of infection.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

Scots have Uncle-fathers and Auntie-mommas too? Hopefully they don't have father-grandpas.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

Living under a bridge and dying of exposure is living like a king compared to the Neanderthals?

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Quirkz]

Long duck dawn?*

Darn it, now I've got to go watch a John Hughes movie.

*Yeah, I know that's not *quite* how he put it.

Re: Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have actual data about gender relations and status of homosexual practices among Neanderthals? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[rtb61]

Now that is a whole other question. Do we or do we not have the right to live like free Neanderthals, to live off the land as we choose and see fit. So royalty gets to choose and well, the rest of us either get killed or put in a cage should we attempt to engage in what is our natural born right. I mean you really do get the difference don't you or do you just consider the rest of us animals and you are the only true person. You seemed to have confused a neutral some what satirical anarchistic libertarian statement with something else based around your own personal greed.

Re:Never seen so many allergies in people

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the comment. Having a small kid, I'd like to show him how life was when I was younger, what food I ate etc.

Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[ClickOnThis]

No "h" please.

Look, I realize it might be too late to fix this mistake. But please, let's try.

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[Hognoxious]

Fail, you fat boche bastard...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[bondsbw]

Indeed, it is too late to fix your mistake.

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[wonkey_monkey]

Yes "h" please.

It's not a mistake. The word was coined before the spelling of "thal" (valley) was changed to "tal."

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

The H is indeed a mistake. The link states clearly that the word originates from the German place Neandertal. This got corrupted when used in English long ago and the H was added. The result is eternal confusion about the spelling. It's funny that we have to change names we used in centuries due to local spelling (like Belarus vs "white Russia"), but when English corrupts German, it suddenly wrong to correct.

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

The article spells it "Neandertal" and never use the H spelling. All the people objecting here reveal they haven't read the article.

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not what the link states. The link states nothing about corruption, but does point out that the original German spelling (which includes the h) was used. There is nothing in the article about it being a mistake. It all seems quite clear, in fact.

You are imposing your own rule based on your own idea about how the name should have been formed. You don't have the authority to do that.

And even if you did (which you don't), it would be too late. That spelling has been established as the correct spelling in English. The vast majority know this spelling, and so it will endure despite your protests.

Deal with it.

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[ClickOnThis]

I did read the article. It's TFS that has the wrong spelling.

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia has the "h" spelling, which is the same spelling I have seen for the word throughout my entire life. The author of the article seems to have chosen a spelling that is not in common use, in English.

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[AthanasiusKircher]

The H is indeed a mistake. The link states clearly that the word originates from the German place Neandertal.

No, it doesn't. The link states that "Tal" used to be spelled "Thal" before the modern German spelling reform, which happened roughly 100 years ago. Since the word was coined in the mid-1800s, it originally had "Thal" in German too.

This got corrupted when used in English long ago and the H was added. The result is eternal confusion about the spelling.

No -- the English used the proper German spelling at the time the word entered English. Then the Germans decided to change their spelling of the word.

Additionally, the German word (with or without "h") was ALWAYS pronounced "tal," as most cases of "th" are in German. (See English words like "Thomas" pronounced "tomas" as well.)

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love slashdot. The article is ignored and the most discussed topic is spelling of a single word. Time to get the popcorn.

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you expect otherwise? The upshot of the summary is a single fact which is scientific in nature but only moderately interesting. Depression and allergies are common problems...and now we believe that Neanderthal DNA increases the risk. Ok. There really isn't much more to say about that.

Correcting others' mistakes, however, is a never-ending cornucopia of dopamine. So, people will latch on to whatever hook provides the fix. This is natural enough, and I don't see anything wrong with it.

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[Hognoxious]

What it clearly states is that either spelling is permissible, so just fuck off.

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[codeButcher]

In Soviet Russia, "Neandertal" has a tiny little bit of "Homo sapiens" in him.

Re:Neandertal, not Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

> In Soviet Russia, "Neandertal" has a tiny little bit of "Homo sapiens" in him.

Hmm, what if Neanderthal genes expression is triggered by cold ?

what you are really concerned about

[Gravis Zero]

it increases your chance of unibrow!

Re:what you are really concerned about

[Anonymous Coward]

It may also increase your chance to time travel, wake up with your butt in the air, like swimming, own a cat, or dance with the devil in pale moonlight.

Re:what you are really concerned about

[Tablizer]

increases your chance of unibrow

I don't have that problem because I run Winbrow instead.

Re:what you are really concerned about

[antdude]

So, my old green Chinese dragon is from Netherland.

Depression is natural...

[Anonymous Coward]

... when you are (partly) a member of an extinct species.

Tsc

[Anonymous Coward]

what I'm suposed to do? ain't goona admit anybody I'll spent the rest of my life alone just because You wanna it.

RACISTS!

[gurps_npc]

How dare they ascribe all the bad stuff to x race and barely mention the good stuff.

{end joke}

Re:RACISTS!

[PolygamousRanchKid]

So which candidate is the Neanderthal Caucus going to endorse . . . Bernie or Hillary . . . ?

Trump, Busch, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio . . . ?

Re:RACISTS!

[gtall]

Well...there are the Neanderthal babes...furry little sex kittens that they are.

Re:RACISTS!

[gtall]

Cruz, just listen to his campaigngasms...he's going to smote this, carpet bomb that, etc....he's a perfect fit. And Trump bores them.

Re:RACISTS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Been thinking about putting up a sign in my cube:

Trump 2016, because Cruz just isn't crazy enough.

Re: RACISTS!

[Anonymous Coward]

so cute, how the mainstream programmed you.

Hidden?

[turkeydance]

one look at me, and there's no doubt. just ask my wife.

Robosexuality

[m2shariy]

Do not repeat the old mistakes, bots!

Neandertal or hybrid issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the issues due to neandertal genes or due to two human races mixing together? If we look at cattle, a lot of selective breeding has been done and a lot of races have been created. It turns out that some races have race specific issues. However mixing two races can create new problems not present in any of the parent races. For some reason genes aren't always 50% abilities from each parent, but rather effects of combos.

Somehow I don't think the neandertals living during the ice age were prone to blood clots. The simple reason is that they survived for like 300k years in those conditions, which mean they could not have been fragile. As the arms and legs cools down, the risk of blood clots increase, which mean being prone to those sounds quite bad in a cold environment. Pure speculation could be that neandertals had genes to protect them against restricted blood flow. If so, a blood clot would then not be a major issue to them and a single gene increasing the risk wouldn't be a fatal gene. However with 1-4% (article mentions 1.5% average, not 1-4% spread) it leaves the majority of neandertal genes lost and this gamble could provide us with increased risk, but not the protection.

I don't really like the headline. It smells a bit like "people without neandertal genes are better". Read another article and you can make the headline "people with neandertal genes are better". There is research indicating that modern humans wouldn't have survived in Europe without a specific neandertal gene. Something about ensuring survival to some European disease, food or some other environmental danger. Research into genes and their effects is an interesting field of research and yeah people with different genes aren't 100% alike. Still going down the path of saying that one group is genetically better than some other group of people seems a bit dangerous to me, particularly since the understanding of genes is just the tip of the iceberg and there is no way to make such conclusions.

Re:Neandertal or hybrid issues

[KGIII]

From what little I know, which is not much, Neanderthal is not what I'd call "fragile." All of my "expertise" comes from documentaries. PBS had a great one, NOVA, called something like, "Where did we Come From." It was a five part series and traced the various people back and tried to find out the paths they took and how we got to be where we are today - it was pretty good.

At any rate, the Neanderthal didn't really go extinct. I mean, yeah, there are none left but there's probably some genetic material left in you. Humans and Neanderthal had a distant ancestor that they shared. The paths diverged and Neanderthal was the first to evolve into a higher form (for lack of a better word). We humans were on a different track and later we bumped into each other, probably in Europe, and had enough genetic material to successfully mate.

For whatever reason, and we do not know why, the Neanderthal itself ceased to exist - it's speculated that it was neither overpopulation, resource use, or violence. They simply don't know - it may have been a specific pathogen that only affected them but not humans or impacted humans at a lesser rate - some immunity might be there today, hidden dormant in our genetic material.

But, the Neanderthal and the Human had mated and produced offspring. So, really... It's kind of true that there are no more Neanderthals left and that means we can call them extinct but there are still plenty of them walking around - at least if you get a bunch of humans and mash 'em up in a blender or something. That's how it works, right? I don't know if extinct is the right word for it?

At any rate, they were much, much thicker and more robust than we are. If you look at their bones, they're huge. If you ever see the guys from Iceland at the Tough Man competitions, they were built a bit like them but probably a bit more broad than most of those guys. They were HUGE. They had some neat pictures of their bones and our bones, in a side by side picture, and it was impressive how huge they were. They did a CGI overlay of them (I think that's the same series) and it's amazing how much larger they were. They weren't all that much taller, necessarily, but they were much more broad and thicker. I sometimes wonder if they were what led to some of the "giant" tales that are common across the globe. Maybe not them while they were alive but it's not unlikely that someone uncovered their bones back then and figured out that they were very similar and very large.

I forget the exact numbers they gave but they had an estimated strength based on mass, density, muscle insert and origin markings on the bone, leverage, etc... They concluded that they were probably able to lift and carry large amounts of weight and were insanely strong. They've also concluded that speech, as we know it, was likely impossible for them but that they were likely rather intelligent.

But, fragile is not a word that I'd use to describe them. Of course, I'm not an expert and my knowledge comes from documentaries watched for amusement and not for educational purposes.

Re: Neandertal or hybrid issues

[Anonymous Coward]

neanderthal is bankster codeword for people who do not like their "progressive" ideology of cheating until hell appears.

note that communism is just another bankster invention. made in london.

scientific evidence says the neanderthals simply mixed with others and their genes were quite successful indeed.

learn to decode commie and bankster codewords and memes.

most importantly, get yourself a girl an mixyour genes with hers.

also, throw out the tv, its a bankster controlled programming device. the target is your brain.

Re:Neandertal or hybrid issues

[Anonymous Coward]

You completely missed the point regarding the word fragile. The argument is that they could not have been fragile since they survived in an environment too harsh for modern humans to live in, yet the article indicates that they would be by being prone to all those diseases. You counter this by arguing that they would not have been fragile.

Re:Neandertal or hybrid issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really like the headline. It smells a bit like "people without neandertal genes are better".

Since sub-aharan populations have little or no neanderthal genes, that headline might have been very intentional, to fit in with the narrative of the modern world (i.e. European == baaaad)

Re: Neandertal or hybrid issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, "Neanderthal" isn't generally used the way you claim. Just because you like making up new meanings for words doesn't mean everyone else uses them that way.

Re:Neandertal or hybrid issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget the exact numbers they gave but they had an estimated strength based on mass, density, muscle insert and origin markings on the bone, leverage, etc... They concluded that they were probably able to lift and carry large amounts of weight and were insanely strong. They've also concluded that speech, as we know it, was likely impossible for them but that they were likely rather intelligent.

The realization I had during my anthropology studies was that Neanderthals were essentially humans adapted to hunt something like bears. They had limited hunting technology, but relied on large animals to survive, so they developed the crazy strength to survive interacting with their prey up close and personal (even though they probably didn't use their strength most other times).

Re:Neandertal or hybrid issues

[KGIII]

That must have made for some interesting study material. My only experience/education is from having a friend who's an Archaeologist, the little bit covered in various courses, and documentaries. I've always thought it would make a very fun field to study. There's some interesting ways to draw connections between the societies and interactions then and now.

I often will just let the recommended/next options pick my documentaries for me. (I pretty much only watch documentaries, as a general rule I'm not really interested in other stuff.) So, I enjoy it when I come across things that aren't what I'd have typically considered watching. That's how I ended up with the NOVA series and I really enjoyed it. I'm pretty sure I watched it on YouTube and I was probably logged in at the time. That means I can probably go through my history and find it -- if you're actually curious or haven't seen it. I think it's five or six episodes long and is about a lot more than just the Neanderthal.

I don't understand.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are so superior, why do you feel the need to mock?

When I see a developmentally-disabled person bagging groceries at the super market, I don't start insulting them. I don't go posting on forums about how horrible and inferior they are. At most I just reflect that they are filling an economic need that suits them.

I am pretty sure you do the same. But why only mock black people, and not developmentally-disabled people? My best guess is its because you aren't assured of your superiority over blacks, thus making the possibility of their equality a threat to your fragile ego.

Your behavior is indicative of ignorance and an inferiority complex. This doesn't exactly make you a shining example of the group to which you so proudly claim membership.

I fail to understand where these people think huma

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to understand where these people think humans came from - they did not just appear (unless you buy into all that bible BS), so they did not just start mating Neandertals but more evolved out of Neandertals, so Neandertals are part of our evolution therefor part of what it is to be human - not a separate evolutionary path.

Re:I fail to understand where these people think h

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope - they are distinct branches from a (much older) common ancestor.

Re:I fail to understand where these people think h

[turbidostato]

"so Neandertals are part of our evolution"

No, they aren't.

"not a separate evolutionary path."

Yes, they are.

Review your sources.

The explosive growth of allergies, mental illness

[Anonymous Coward]

seen in the last 30-40 years, has nothing to do with "neanderthal DNA" and supposed mating with neanderthal people tens of thousands of years ago.

Up-Sides?

[Tablizer]

There may be some upsides to their DNA that we don't yet know about. Diseases and extreme problems are better understood because that's what medical experts are expected to focus on. But there could also be some nice traits we picked up from them such that they counter the negative traits enough to survive in our genome.

And the down-sides of them may only show up in some people. That is, they depend on combinations of other genes to manifest themselves.

Why red-haired girls?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANA Paleontologist, thus:

I've read red-hair is believed to be a Neanderthal trait? Is it true?

I've also read most of these traits gained due to interbreeding are linked to the Y chromosome, thus more present in males than in females (bigger bone structures near the eyebrows, for example -- is it?)... so why do we get red-haired women? (BTW, I find them beautiful, this is not a racist question... I'm just curious)

Re:Why red-haired girls?

[Anonymous Coward]

The neandertal genes, which have been analyzed so far indicates blue eyes, blond or red (both, but not in the same individual) hair and white skin. It was the researchers in Leipzig who first got hold of a complete neandertal gene readout, which mean it's the same people or at least same research facility, which is the source for the article at the top here. This mean they are the source of most neandertal genetic news. They have made a bunch of statements, but I can't remember any of it being linked to the Y chromosome.

However now that you mention it, thinking about my own family, there are a few redheads and they all happen to be male. It's way too few individuals to be of any use scientifically or statistically, but reading it could be a Y chromosome thing makes me wonder. Do anybody have a trustworthy source for this topic?

Also if we have neandertal Y chromosome genes, then we are told something about how the interbreeding happened. It still leaves out quite a number of details though.

Scotland and Ireland are the places with the largest amount of redheads and it's far greater than anywhere else. Does this mean they have a higher amount of neandertal blood?

why do we get red-haired women?

To get something awesome to look at!

If there are redheads without any Y chromosomes, then the logical conclusion is that it can occur without influence from the Y chromosome. It's possible there are multiple genes, which results in redheads and the Y chromosome is one of them.

Re:Why red-haired girls?

[Anonymous Coward]

> However now that you mention it, thinking about my own family, there are a few redheads and they all happen to be male. It's way too few individuals to be of any use scientifically or statistically, but reading it could be a Y chromosome thing makes me wonder. Do anybody have a trustworthy source for this topic?

I have this, quite layman-level expressed, though I might have misunderstood it:

http://blog.oup.com/2015/04/neanderthal-genes-positive-negative-natural-selection/

>> why do we get red-haired women?

> To get something awesome to look at!

Hehehe! Certainly!

> It's possible there are multiple genes, which results in redheads and the Y chromosome is one of them.

It crossed my mind... though IANAG (Geneticist).

Re:So basically

[dsmatthews9379]

No but Africans are far more genetically diverse, so you can't generalise as easily about them as a group. That diversity just implies a wider spread of capabilities, if anything at all, and it says nothing about the reproductive fitness value of any given characteristic.

As far as evolution is concerned only fecundity matters, and everything above your hips is there acting in a support role to your gonads.

Blacks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Proto humans came out of Africa and intermingled witn neanderthals creating a hybrid. These hybrids had bigger and more specialised brains and rose to dominance over their slower witted "cousins" from the original stock. Another line of the original stock spread further and intermingled with a relative or the neanderthal called denovisans and created yet another hybrid. This hybrid too was more vigorous than the original stock and it too climbed the ladder to dominance. So this left the two improved hybrids (whites and northern asians) to rise to prominence while relegating the original stock (blacks) to a secondary role. Curiously, a strain of hybrids migrated back into Africa and ended up settling near the Cape. They then ended up dominating the other blacks in the region.
Its demonstrably true that neanderthal/denisovan hybrids are much more able than the original strain. More cerebral horsepower.

Re:Idle hands

[KGIII]

I'd hoped I'd find you in this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Given your prior links, I'd be surprised if you didn't know the song. For the rest, give it a click. It's definitely on-topic. I posted at the top of the thread and mentioned that it'd be good if Pope could see it. So, if you didn't click it the first time - there it is again.

Turn the volume up loud and get groovy. Get down with your bad selves! Dance and wave your hands around and gyrate those hips like the Summer of Love has ended and you're desperate to keep it alive! Dance like you've eaten the brown acid. Get down with your partner or get down with yourself. If all you got is a cat? Get down with that.

Re: Idle hands

[Anonymous Coward]

So, will it be a quiet affair or a full church wedding for you two ?

Re: Idle hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Full blown affair but not in a church. Do you want an invitation? 'Cause I'll send you an invitation. Hell, if you want, you can even be the bride's maid.

Anyhow, I'm kinda low on posts by now and, while I should be asleep, I'm gonna stay awake a while longer. So, I'll post this as an AC and save my post count for something a little more interesting. This is, obviously, me.

bankster propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a fine piece of bankster propaganda.

depicting a former european race as wholly evil.

occams razor says the neanderthals had some important useful genetic strengths.

this is probably part of anti trump propaganda.

Which way gene flow?

[codeButcher]

genes picked up in these trysts

I've recently read a couple of more popular articles on Neanderthals (including on Wikipedia). All seem to allude that there was some happy-go-lucky "free love" get-togethers, or intermarriage, with the "other" neighbors way back when.

The Wikipedia article however also states: "While modern humans share some nuclear DNA with the extinct Neanderthals, the two species do not share any mitochondrial DNA,[54] which in primates is always maternally transmitted."

Or, translated to more modern hominid: The genetics indicate that H. sapiens do not have female H. neanderthalensis ancestors, only male ones.

I wasn't there to know exactly what happened, but it does narrow the possibilities a bit, doesn't it...

Re:Which way gene flow?

[Anonymous Coward]

To summarize: H.sapiens women slept around with Neanderthal men on the down low.

maybe I got a lot of neanderthal in me

[Anonymous Coward]

I have horrible allergies,( on 2 meds) my lymph nodes swell at nothing was a smoker for years, have serious psoriasis (skin issues) and father died of stomach cancer - did I mention I am Asian and European.....