Slashdot Mirror


Neanderthal Ancestors May Be To Blame For Why You Can't Get a Tan (telegraph.co.uk)

turkeydance shares a report from The Telegraph: If you struggle to get a tan, consider yourself a night owl or are plagued with arthritis, then your Neanderthal ancestors could be to blame, a new genetic study has shown. Although Neanderthals are often portrayed in drawings as swarthy, in fact they arrived in Northern Europe thousands of years before modern humans, giving time for their skin to become paler as their bodies struggled to soak up enough sun. When they interbred with modern humans those pale genes were passed on. Likewise, genetic mutations which predispose people to arthritis also came from our Neanderthal ancestors, as did the propensity to be a night owl rather than a lark, as northern latitudes altered their body clocks. A raft of new papers published in the journals Science and the American Journal of Human Genetics has shed light on just how many traits we owe to our Neanderthal ancestors.

Scientists also now think that differences in hair color, mood and whether someone will smoke or have an eating disorder could all be related to inter-breeding, after comparing ancient DNA to 112,000 British people who took part in the UK Biobank study. The Biobank includes genetic data along with information on many traits related to physical appearance, diet, sun exposure, behavior, and disease and helps scientists pick apart which traits came from Neanderthals. Dr Janet Kelso, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, in Germany, said: "We can now show that it is skin tone, and the ease with which one tans, as well as hair color that are affected."

41 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. If you struggle to get a tan, consider yourself.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    If you struggle to get a tan, consider yourself a night owl or are plagued with arthritis

    Stop spying on me, NSA!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article indicates that early humans developed strategies to avoid interbreeding, recognizing that there were dangers associated with doing so. Although many people consider religion ridiculous now, it may have provided a survival advantage at one time, promoting an orderly society. It seems like the attempts to avoid interbreeding may have also conferred a survival advantage, and that trait may persist to this day as racism and avoiding diversity. It makes me wonder if racism, awful as it is, may have once provided a very real survival advantage to early humans.

    1. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First, interbreeding would be between humans and animals

      Crap. Interbreeding is just breeding between things that you've sorted into different categories. Referring to sexual activity between neanderthals and homo sapiens as interbreeding is fine.

    2. Re: Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're an asshole for labeling me a troll. I'm asking a serious question of whether racism is the evolutionary remnant of something that once conferred a survival advantage. I'm suggesting that humans evolved to avoid mingling and mating with those who looked and acted differently as a mechanism to prevent interspecies mating. What once might have provided an advantage to early humans is now probably harmful, but our genes haven't caught up to that reality.

      Early humans didn't understand genetics and the actual differences between them and neanderthals. Early humans looked different from neanderthals and probably acted differently. The article suggests that humans and neanderthals didn't just try to avoid interbreeding but also isolated themselves socially. If interbreeding was dangerous, there would have been a survival advantage to avoiding those who looked and acted differently.

      There are plenty of evolutionary traits that were once useful but no longer are. The desire to avoid mingling with those who looked and acted differently would have once served a purpose of preventing interspecies mating. The same trait might manifest itself today as racism. Although it would no longer serve a useful purpose, I'm suggesting that racism might be an evolutionary trait. Traits like skin color have evolved because of the latitudes that humans resided at. However, in the times were talking about, humans didn't travel the world and freely migrate as they do today. Europeans and Americans might well have never encountered anyone from Africa, and mixed-race mating might not have been much of an issue. However, interspecies mating obviously did occur.

    3. Re:Racism by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The article indicates that early humans developed strategies to avoid interbreeding, recognizing that there were dangers associated with doing so.

      They didn't recognize anything. It's more dangerous not to interbreed. Inbreeding reinforces recessives.

      Although many people consider religion ridiculous now, it may have provided a survival advantage at one time, promoting an orderly society.

      Religion often still offers an advantage for the members, or a subgroup of the members. It just tends to shit on everyone else.

      It seems like the attempts to avoid interbreeding may have also conferred a survival advantage, and that trait may persist to this day as racism and avoiding diversity.

      No, those attempts to avoid interbreeding actually harmed viability. You want a broader gene pool to work with.

      It makes me wonder if racism, awful as it is, may have once provided a very real survival advantage to early humans.

      Nope, it's a bug. The tendency to avoid things that don't look like you is a defense strategy, but if you take it too far then you will miss out on needed genetics.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One other thing I didn't catch when I just replied to your post. Mating between blacks and whites isn't interspecies mating. We're all the same species. Now take your racism and bigotry and GTFO.

    5. Re: Racism by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "I'm suggesting that racism might be an evolutionary trait"

      Probably no need to resort to racism as evolutionary advantage as it looks to me to be too "refined". Ours is a social species, and social cohesiveness provides an obvious survival advantage to the individual. It's also that our intelligence is developed around prejudicing categorization (simplifying a lot: this movement on that bush is a lion that will eat me or is a gazelle I can eat? No, sorry, no time to gather further evidences -and if you fail too often, you either starve or will serve as predators' dinner).

      Everything else are emergent properties of these two traits: even as toddlers, we seek for answers much more than *proper* answers, i.e.: religion: we just can't satisfy ourselves with an "I don't know" answer, much better "this noise? is the thunder God, you know, that is in rage". Science? No, sorry, I just can't stand myself with neither "I don't know" nor "I don't give a damn" I *need* an explanation about what the hell are those bright spots on the night sky and why they move they way they move.

      Racism? Social categorization (us vs them) plus prejudice (if there are an "us" and a "them", one of those two sets *must* be better than the other -and it won't be "us", so it must be "them"). Racism is very easy, since allows to categorize "us" and "them" at first sight, even from afar. With time and social sophistication, racism becomes more subtle too: black vs non-black is just too easy, what about jews/non jews or arian vs non-arian?

      And did you see what I did here? A very nice rationalization instead of just saying "well, I have no idea".

    6. Re: Racism by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "if there are an "us" and a "them", one of those two sets *must* be better than the other -and it won't be "us", so it must be "them""

      Obviously I meant the other way around.

    7. Re: Racism by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Food for thought.

      The one obvious downside of an interracial breeding is the inherent difficulty for the offspring, who, almost without exception, has a more difficult upbringing than a child bearing the physical traits in vogue at the time of the child's birth.

      Disadvantage is a double-edged sword; though it may cull out the weaker offspring and their chances of passing on their genetic line, the harsher conditions are also quite likely to temper the stronger crossbreeds who survive, giving them a breeding advantage.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re: Racism by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be homo sapiens rather than homo erectus? - see timeline

    9. Re: Racism by johanw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure. Neanderthals were also the same species according to your definition.

    10. Re: Racism by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      You might have a point. Science has always had difficulty understanding how intelligence is inherited. Maybe they've been looking at it upside down, and it's actually stupidity that's inherited!

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    11. Re: Racism by hey! · · Score: 1

      The problem with these evolutionary behavior argument is that it's so easy to gin up a scenario to support whatever preconception you have.

      Now let's take the notion that we evolved to have preference for mates that look like us. In fact social psychologists have long shown that people are more attracted to others who resemble them. But there's a big difference between selecting a mate, and who you mate with. When you actually look at peoples' genes, it's clear people aren't nearly so picky about outbreeding as this suggests.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Racism by PPH · · Score: 1

      it may have provided a survival advantage at one time, promoting an orderly society

      Possibly. But that 'one time' predates modern societies and writing. People can't keep track of more than 100 to 200 personal relationships. And back in the days of tribes in the jungle or clans in the Neander valley, that sort of familiarity was necessary to maintain a cohesive social unit. You have trouble with a neighbor? You call for a village meeting, where the elders know everyone, who's honest, who's a fuck-up, etc. And action is taken. But this isn't practical for modern society, where any sort of productivity requires the smooth interaction of millions of people, banking and economic institutions and the rule of (written, not tribal) law. People you may never meet and so who cares what color they are. The need to maintain smaller tribal units and a "them vs us" policy has no place in modern society. Today, its a tool used by sociopaths who want to maintain absolute control of their immediate social group.

      If you want that 'small town' lifestyle, go find a piece of land, some willing followers and set yourself up as the next Warren Jeffs. But keep in mind that his followers lived off of a good amount of child support and welfare fraud (products of the outside world). And Jeffs (and many of his followers) are starting to show signs of inbreeding and becoming genetic dead-ends.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    13. Re:Racism by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      what's your Darwinian objection to Muslims killing every last one of you as an opposing subculture

      Darwin is not God. I don't oppose cannibalism on moral grounds either, I oppose it on the grounds that I am very well-marbled.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re: Racism by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So, for thousands of years humans were predominantly segregated and evolving in tight groups, and now suddenly that is somehow bad for them?

      For thousands of years humans were fucking their children and dying of trivial diseases. Appeal to tradition: denied.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re: Racism by PPH · · Score: 2

      Regardless, there is no established conclusion that mating withing a closed circle is somehow bad.

      Ashkenazi Jews. British royalty. Hillbillies. Isolated animal populations. Lots of other counter examples.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  3. Re:Paywalled non-information by raburton · · Score: 2

    They ask you to sign up for a free account for full text, so you have to jump through one small hoop, but to describe it as "paywalled" and "not for the public" is simply false.

  4. Re: Paywalled non-information by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Depends on your email address. What is it?

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  5. Study by Ebsolas · · Score: 2

    The more study results I see on /. the more I come under the opinion that studies aren't real science. Rather they're a means to prove a point using whatever means possible.

    1. Re:Study by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One study is not science. One study is just one study, even if it's scientific. Science is a process. New scientific "discoveries" are often "bullshit". Once the science has been around for a while, and been reviewed, then it becomes relevant. Consequently we waste time discussing a lot of science-related bullshit here on Slashdot.

      That doesn't invalidate science, but it does suggest that people who see one study and say "see!?" are idiots.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re: Study by Ebsolas · · Score: 1

      So if it's not science then why is it on /.? I'm legitimately confused about this.

  6. Re:Oh, for crying out loud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bioinformatics and genetic data mining is absolutely at the forefront of computer science research today. Nothing is more appropriate as "geek news".

  7. Re:Oh, for crying out loud. by thomst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    jcr snorted:

    This is nothing even close to /. material.

    Oh really?

    a. /. supposedly is "News for nerds."

    b. I'm an unashamed nerd. I'm also a night owl, I burn, rather than tan, and I suffer from "moderate" osteoarthritis. And I'm of northern European extraction (Irish, Welsh, and Prussian to be precise). For all those reasons, this interests me.

    I'll bet you a shiny, new quarter I'm not alone, either ...

    --
    Check out my novel.
  8. Re:So... by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    There's no denying we've been presented with a catchy mnemonic device:

    No-tan-at-all

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  9. Re:Oh, for crying out loud. by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Funny

    That may be true, but you don't hear about many Neanderthal women getting into programming, so clearly we should be talking about the gender gap instead.

    Though come to think of it, I'm not seeing any Neanderthal men either, so it must be a full blown racial issue!

  10. Tan? by rossdee · · Score: 1

    that's Sin/Cos isn't it ?

    I didn't know neanderthals had worked out trigonometry

    1. Re:Tan? by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      With all that interbreeding, at least they had their sin worked out.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  11. Re:White People are not 100% Human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You have to be African for that.

    White people are a100% human. Black people are a 100% human as are all other groups of people. All people should be treated fairly and be given a chance to develop their talents. It is morally wrong to deny any person a decent life or a chance for a decent life because of notions of racial classifications. In same way it is wrong to deny either sex an equal chance. Even more importantly it is stupid.

  12. My ancestry includes by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    2.5% Neanderthal, and about 80% European. I tan just fine.

  13. Easy solution by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just do it like the Neanderthal-in-Chief and use Tan-in-Bottle.

    1. Re:Easy solution by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's an insult to Neanderthals

  14. Re:Oh, for crying out loud. by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Genetics isn't a nerdy science topic? The fuck are you smoking today and may I have some?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  15. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but the world is African. You seem to be ashamed of your African roots.

    Neanderthals won their Darwin award already, and never did form complex civilization. Join them if you wish.,

    Travel much? There is no corner of the planet without advanced civilization. Nor is there any culture entirely lacking merit. You might enjoy investigating this truth. I surely have.

    It should be noted that the bloodiest wars in history have happened in "places with Neanderthal DNA". There is no race that is innocent.

    Fact is, all our civilizations/cultures are works in progress, and it seems to me that working to improve the society you are immersed in is more productive than trying to point out the failings of those of which you are _clearly_ ignorant.

  16. Re: But I can get a tan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do you know any red heads?
    Some of them do not tan; they just burn.

  17. Its always my ancestors fault by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

    I got bad hair from my mom. I stink cuz of my grandpa. I have bunions cuz of my great-grandmothers mail man. I highly doubt anyhow that its only because of neaderthal's as almost any creature that can live a long time gets ware and tear.. as in arthritis.

    -Arzaboa

    --
    "Respect your Elders!" -- Grandpa.

  18. Re:Snow white? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    yea, living in the gravelpits of flanders, hellgium probably the part where they collaborated most during the actual was (which was lost btw ... Hitler is not alive ,and actually without the other three he would have been like never anything but the corporal who could but that aside i often wonder) why are these couch nazis so bent on beach vacations and getting a tan ? i mean whitepower and shit, right?
    makes as much sense as the hackers-on-meth doing abortion clinics i mean do you think baby-hitler wouldnt have wanted abortions to keep eugenics on top ?
    not that the leftists make any more sense
    actually not that any -ist makes any sense to me, all i hear is ME ME ME, and you cant speak !

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  19. Re:Not convinced. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter what color a person's skin is, "rich privilege" wins out. People who end up with money love to pretend that it's natural for them to have it.

    Who the hell is that? Everyone I know that is rich knows it's not natural. They won the lottery of life. If they have kids it can all be gone in less than a year. Even if it's hundreds of millions. It's also very hard to keep it. Everyone wants to part you from your money.

    Just as the poor are poor for a reason. There will always be poor. They can't handle money. If you work with them, that becomes clear fast. So stealing it from the rich doesn't help.

  20. Re: White People are not 100% Human by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Not just KKK members. Antifa, democrats, etc. Anyone on the left. Any of the fascists. That was the whole joke in Charlottesville. We had the KKK and Antifa - both leftists, both democrats and they were fighting each other. Both are racists and they were complaining about old racists. For those of us on the right we're like - yea? Can't we just sit back and watch you bigots kill each other?

  21. Re:Oh, for crying out loud. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    Sprechen sie English?

    Do you want to have a fuck with "jcr", or you want to smoke the come after the fuck? Won't it make your papers wet and sticky and hard to light?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  22. That's very primitive thinking... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    (snicker snicker)