Slashdot Mirror


Humans Having Sex With Neanderthals Gave Us Protection Against Ancient Epidemics (sciencealert.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ScienceAlert: A new study argues that we have Neanderthals to thank for helping us cope with the viral tides we encountered as we marched around the globe. Stanford University researchers have identified DNA sequences that evolved in our ancient cousins can produce antivirus proteins, which more than likely gave some human populations the edge they needed to survive. Roughly 1 percent of our genome's coding was written in Neanderthal populations. But this is a broad average -- many families with African ancestry have zero, for instance, while other populations boast as much as 2 percent or more. So the question is how much of this difference comes down to the random drift of DNA being passed on around the globe, and how much is due to natural selection giving those with Neanderthal genes an advantage?

To build a case one way or another, the Stanford researchers put together a list of just over 4,500 virus-interacting proteins (VIP) made by our genome. These were all matched against a database of Neanderthal DNA that could be found in modern East Asian and European human populations, providing 152 VIP genes shared by both groups of human. Interestingly, all of these VIP genes were of a variety that interacted with RNA viruses -- pathogens that include influenza A, hepatitis C, and HIV. This isn't to say these viruses were problems for ancient humans, but rather that similar RNA viruses were more than likely prevalent enough to shape our evolution. The discovery supports a view of genetic exchange described as the 'poison-antidote' model.

202 comments

  1. Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nah, there's no way this is going to be controversial. ;)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's true, Nazis keep demonstrating how much they suck at almost everything, agreed. How many wars do those retards have to lose before they GET it lol? (Civil war also counts as a massive loss for their retarded inbred brethren)

      They burn what they can't read, sad.

    2. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazi? Look at the hairy backs of then AshkeNazi. Makes you wonder were the crypto-neanderthals went?

    3. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 3

      I'd like to see just how controversial we can get.
      Graph of populations with neanderthal DNA and without vs average IQ would be an interesting one.

    4. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. E. Asians normally have higher percentages of Neanderthal DNA in them than Europeans.

    5. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      And those are also the populations we stereotypically associate with a high work ethic and focus on education. Go figure.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    6. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. Jews have a abnormal large amount of Neanderthal DNA. This gives rise to particular behaviour and physical traits. The group pride also stems from this.

    7. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      Nah, there's no way this is going to be controversial. ;)

      It's only politically incorrect to say positive things about the patriarchy, not the neanderarchy. There's no possible way this could devolve into bickering. (Where's the sarcasm tag?)

    8. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you need to know:
      https://www.darkmoon.me/2014/they-are-not-like-us-by-jack-harper/

    9. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the percentages in East Asia? I'm living beside the Baltic Sea in area where the percentage of Neanderthal DNA is maximum on average in the whole of Europe.

    10. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is the nazis want to have sex with the jews, but they are so dumb about their approach they end up fucking themselves to death inevitably through inbreeding and deluded head-in-ass isolationism like inbreds.

    11. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now what if we pretend the neanderthals were all gay? Would that be okay?

      (Reasoning with the unreasonable for teh lulz and getting laid.)

    12. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly sure. My brother though had I believe 4% neanderthal DNA in him, which I thought was odd, since it was supposed to be much more than average. So I looked it up, and it was considered normal for E. Asians to have more neanderthal DNA than Europeans. Googling though suggests about 20% more on average. See e.g. https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297%2815%2900014-2

      The article suggests that they may have mated later again with Asians, thus the reason why the % is higher.

    13. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry I meant my brother had 3% according to 23&me.

    14. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's true, Nazis keep demonstrating how much they suck at almost everything, agreed. "

      They did rocket science quite well though.

    15. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They still were white so... no. They need to check their privilege.

    16. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know the assault didn't take place because "too ugly".

    17. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many wars did they win again?

    18. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone's been reading too much Huffington Post. Go outside.

    19. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up to 2-4% is the range in Europe, with the around 4% maximum here. So the numbers sound very similar in that respect. But then again, some of our populations have strong pre-historical and historical connections to the populations of the Central Asia.

    20. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that Aryl wanted to look at some kind of scientific study rather than a steaming pile of Putinoid/Anti-Semitist drivel. But thanks for playing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    21. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Many East Asians also have Denisovan DNA, and Denisovans also had some Neanderthal DNA.

    22. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You could equally well argue the other way. There's no way to estimate how many of our genes were Neanderthal in source, because most of them were identical in the two populations. And don't forget the Denisovians, who were also the contributors of many specialized genes, though mainly in Asia.

      FWIW, the idea of species is (usually) a gross oversimplification when descussing closely related populations. There *do* appear to have been reproductive barriers, but they were clearly not insurmountable. I suspect that one of them had to do with the shape of the babies head and the shape of the female birth canal leanding to high mortality amoung Neanderthan women who bore Cro-Magnon babies. This would explain the absence of Neanderthal mitochondria in modern populations.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    23. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I occasionally dip into white nationalists sites to keep tabs on what's going on there, and some racists are actually embracing the Neanderthal heritage thing as a justification for supposed European genetic superiority.

      As usual this kind of "just so" pseudoscience is based on the highly selective choice of data that's always underpinned various racial theories. There are some 20,000 protein encoding genes in the human genome, and if you look for geographic clusters of the 324 million known gene variants you will find some, whether it's for white skin or red hair. If you look at the big picture you find that people aren't that picky about who they have sex with, such that looking for a population that is genetically inbred over the course of more than a few hundred years is a fool's errand.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    24. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Graph of populations with neanderthal DNA and without vs average IQ would be an interesting one.

      That would be best, though we could make some progress without that because natural geographic boundaries have produced step function in DNA mixing by isolating human sub-populations, making geographic location a good proxy for Neanderthal DNA admixture. The genetic makeup of the Americas is complex because of their complex recent histories of migration, but for the old world (Europe, China, Africa) geographic location of populations is a reasonable proxy. Europe and Asia have a few percent admixture while sub-Saharan Africa has about no neanderthal-specific DNA. Here is a map of IQ by nation.

      There are a few important caveats about drawing from those comparisons any inferences about the influence of Neanderthal DNA on IQ:

      There have been isolated ancient backmigrations into Africa which presumably introduced some Neanderthal DNA into at least Ethiopia, but who knows what the dilution has been over the millennia?

      There is a lot of conjecture about how much IQ could be boosted in Africa as a result of improvements in medicine and nutrition and consequent gains from the Flynn Effect. (Comparison between native Africans and those of pure African descent raised in western nations might be the best predictor.)

      Selective pressures in Europe and Asia wold have applied to immigrating African populations after their arrival, so that the higher IQs seen in more northern regions could be the result of selection for adaptive genetics pre-existing in the arriving population, as opposed to genetics introduced by admixture from native Neanderthals. Your graph suggestion would help to tease apart those two hypotheses except that it would need to be a graph of individuals, not of populations.

    25. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      You could equally well argue the other way. There's no way to estimate how many of our genes were Neanderthal in source, because most of them were identical in the two populations.

      Untrue. The different proportions of inheritance of the unique alleles from the two species allows us to directly measure how much admixture there was.

      Here is a "water analogy". If you have to buckets of water, and add a drop of dye A to one and a drop of dye B to the other, and then you have a sample that is an unknown mixture of the two buckets, it is a simple matter to tell what the mixture proportion is. It is the relative change in concentration of dyes A and B in the sample. It would be absurd to argue that there is no way to estimate this since the vast majority of molecules in the buckets are identical (being water).

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    26. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stfu you ugly jewish piece of shit

    27. Re:Europeans saving the world with superior genes? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That analogy doesn't work because the dye doesn't have any effect on the water continuing to persist. A better argument could be shaped around blood types and disease resistance, and it might be in favor of your stance, but this isn't clear because the DNA in fossils is highly degraded, and not evenly so for all nucleotide groups, as some are more resistant to weathering than others.

      The remarkable thing is that we have any residual evidence at all, but it sure is far from complete.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  2. And all because... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Funny

    Some homo sapiens sapiens couldn't get a date some evening, but there was always their Neanderthal friend for evenings like that

    1. Re:And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some homo sapiens sapiens couldn't get a date some evening, but there was always their Neanderthal friend for evenings like that

      More likely, the Neanderthal found this dumb ugly creature and felt sorry for it.

    2. Re:And all because... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some homo sapiens sapiens couldn't get a date some evening, but there was always their Neanderthal friend for evenings like that

      The Neanderthals were really the fun ones, but could not hold their liquor. And the Sapiens girls definitely preferred them because they were bad boys, and they thought the protruding brow ridges were sexy.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes us look less stupid, too. Now that's what I call friendship.

    4. Re:And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fucked Ugg and Thags wives, at the same time.

    5. Re:And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if that homo sapiens liked hot redheads there simply wouldn't have been any other choice at that time.

    6. Re: And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I laughed.

    7. Re:And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All in all it could have been neangirls taking advantage of weak homosapience boys. I saw it in "Quest for Fire".

    8. Re:And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they can just kavanaugh

    9. Re: And all because... by jd · · Score: 1

      I know it's supposed to be funny, but I'll bore the socks off people by noting we have only found one hybrid who had a homo sapien father. Every other archaeological specimen we know of has a Neanderthal father.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    10. Re: And all because... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      On what planet do you live?

      We found thousands of hybrids and hundred thousands of genes that got exchanged from one species to the other. E.g. "red hair" genes and "pain tolerance" jumped from neanderthaliens to sapiense sapiense.

      Bottom line they looked like us anyway with just minor differences, depicting them like hairy apes is out of fashion since 50 years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:And all because... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much of it was politics. Marriage has been used as a tool for brokering peace and trade deals since time immemorial. Women were often the spoils of war too, eliminating your enemies by murdering them and then out-breeding them.

      Fun times.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the first drinking game known as devil's triangle...

    13. Re:And all because... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Well, humans tend to want what is best in life -- which, according to a wise man, is "To crush your enemies. See them driven before you and to hear the lamentation of the women."

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    14. Re:And all because... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Joking, right? The sapiens males raped the neanderthal females. It's rape culture, unchanged to this day.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    15. Re:And all because... by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Joking, right? The sapiens males raped the neanderthal females. It's rape culture, unchanged to this day.

      I recommend you read up a bit on genetics of Neanderthal and modern man, and especially research on mitochondrial DNA (which only pass through the maternal line) and Y-chromosome alleles (which only pass through the paternal line).
      In short, what you would expect to find if your WAG was correct would be extant Neanderthal mitochondrial lines, but little to no Y-chromosome contamination. That's not what we find.

      Due to scarcity of uncontaminated Neanderthal DNA, most of it coming from a single cave in Croatia, our picture is far from good, but the scenario where human men raped Neanderthal girls and that being the reason for Neanderthal DNA in our genome is pretty much ruled out.

    16. Re:And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some homo sapiens sapiens couldn't get a date some evening, but there was always their Neanderthal friend for evenings like that

      The Neanderthals were really the fun ones, but could not hold their liquor. And the Sapiens girls definitely preferred them because they were bad boys, and they thought the protruding brow ridges were sexy.

      Well SOME people still acts very much like neanderthals hehe

    17. Re:And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even a female neanderthal would have been quite capable of casually ripping your arms off, so I think it's unlikely that sapiens would have been doing the raping on that occasion. Contrary to what seems to be the prevailing opinion these days, rape was not actually invented by white european males or their ancestors.

    18. Re:And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #meSNOO

    19. Re: And all because... by jd · · Score: 1

      As best as I recall, only four hybridisation events with Neanderthals, and two with Denisovans, have ever been found. Fewer than a dozen skeletons that are 25%+ Neanderthal have been found. Only a few hundred, certainly not a few thousand, skeletons have been found in total between 25,000-55,000 BCE, the only years that matter for hybridisation.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    20. Re:And all because... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I see you are unfamiliar with rape culture. How do people graduate from university without knowing this universal truth?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    21. Re: And all because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They deny it because they raped while in college. Rape culture. It's real.

    22. Re: And all because... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Since about ten years we have in the news every month or every second month findings reported about this or that gene being transferred from Neanderthals to modern humans ... so I doubt it is all based on two or three findings. Basically every news article is referring to many examinations, not just a single one.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  3. Re:The new Bell Curve controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I originally posted this, I would like to add.

    I wish that this would not degrade into white/black argument. Sadly I started this with my comment. I should have added that I see this as degrading into the white genes are better, not that I believe they are. My original comment was too curt.

  4. Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is partly why nerds survived so long....
    Myself included naturally.

  5. Bring it On! by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Know anyone?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:Bring it On! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo mama!

    2. Re: Bring it On! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear Brett got rid of his little black book. Might want to ask him.

  6. It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ....it looks like the original strain came out of Africa.....then mated with neanderthals creating a stronger, smarter hybrid. They also crossed with a cousin of the Neanderthal called the Denisovans and created another hybrid that was also smarter and better than the original strain.

    Fast forward a few tens of thousands of years and we call the originals "Blacks", the Neanderthal hybrid 'Whites" and the Denisovan hybrid "Asians".

    It's a lot more complicated than that, of course....but it does make sense.

    1. Re:It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes sense to you without reading much at all the fuck about it has just about zero to actually do with historical reality.... which also does make sense.

    2. Re:It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, waiting for your refutation.

      Ohhh...that's right, you don't have one.

      Try again kiddo.

    3. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment was complete nonsense with no correspondence to anything except your own fantasies. Surely you are are underemployed weirdo. Why bother refuting your random stream of nonsense? Youâ(TM)re just an internet weirdo, not a scientific journal.

    4. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like I said....try again kiddo.

      Isn't it past your bedtime little fella ?

    5. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by jd · · Score: 2

      No, homo sapiens met Denisovans in Indonesia, on the path out of Africa.

      This conveyed superior capacity for low temperatures and low oxygen.

      Humans only met Neanderthals 55,000-60,000 years ago.

      Many hybrids, such as those in the Red Deer Cave, went extinct.

      There is no superiority. Stronger immune systems are why Europeans suffer from far more severe autoimmune disorders, conditions barely known in Africa.

      It's always a trade-off. We are all specialists, adapted to local needs, as always happens with evolution.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Then provide citations from one or more scientific journals that prove him wrong. That shouldn't be at all difficult for someone as on top of the facts as you, right?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Higher intellect is a superiority.

      The neanderthal dna didnt just give the whites better immune systems. It also gave them bigger, more complex brains.

      Thus, the Bell Curve.

      QED

    8. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      The sickle cell disease that's common in Africa might not qualify as an autoimmune disease, but it's the result of a similar tradeoff.

    9. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong.

      It's the Africans that get the autoimmune diseases.

      bigthink.com/philip-perry/a-single-neanderthal-gene-differentiates-african-from-european-immune-systems

      Enjoy.

    10. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could say the same thing about the original comment: provide some scientific documentation for your claims.
      Instead of blabbering some off-the-top of-your-head bullshit theory and then demanding scientific proof of it's stupidity.

    11. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Higher intellect is a superiority.

      No, not necessarily. There is always a trade-off, and some of them are that the computing power on top of your shoulders take up space, weight, has a very high energy need, and increase the risk of death during birth.
      Only when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages to the point of providing more viable offspring will evolution select for a trait, including intelligence.

      It seems inevitable that there have been many cases of a higher intellect being selected against, including stillbirths, and little clever Al not running as fast from the wolf as his stupid brother Ed, and thus Ed's genes were the ones we inherited.

      Another example is the sitting president who by definition has obtained superiority despite not exactly being seen as a higher intellect. He also has 5 known children and 9 grandchildren so far, which is far more than average. In his case, a reasonable assumption is that power is superior to intellect for the propagation of this particular gene mix in this particular environment.

    12. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No. Sickle cell disease isn't an immune disorder. The red blood cells do it to themselves, and then physically clog up the small blood vessels.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You need to rethink your geography. Also the Neanderthals and Denisovians were as human as the Cro-Magnon, artistic depictions to the contrary notwithstanding. There's also no evidence that one group was smarter than the others, but Cro-Magnons did tend to live in larger groups, so they coud exchange ideas more readily. They also had a shoulder that was more adapted to throwing, so they didn't need to get in as close to kill a prey. This was less dangerous.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by jd · · Score: 1

      Cro-Magnon doesn't exist as a recognized group any more.

      I go by the fossils, tools and FTDNA maps. Geography isn't much use when they travelled by boats after 1 million years before present. It has also changed due to ice sheets melting.

      Indonesia and China consistently show the earliest incursions from Africa by homo sapiens and the earliest hybridisation events.

      That's the way it is.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    15. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by Jodka · · Score: 1

      Stronger immune systems are why Europeans suffer from far more severe autoimmune disorders, conditions barely known in Africa.

      There is compelling evidence that one cause of increasing rates of autoimmune disorders at more Northern latitudes is lower sunlight exposure and consequent Vitamin D deficiency; Vitamin D supplementation reduces rates of auto-immune disease significantly.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    16. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      The burden is upon the original claimant to show there is support for his ideas. Let him/her do so, otherwise there is no point in wasting any time on it.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    17. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Sickle cell is a genetic defect. It can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on where you live and how strongly it's expressed.

      Being resistant to disease is generally an advantage. Even the younger crowd of cancer patients have generally lived long enough to spawn the next generation. They're already past the natural human expiration date.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    18. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Agreed. But it's not an immune disease, except in an extremely indirect way.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    19. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be ridiculous. A nation of high IQ white people will absolutely wipe the floor with a nation of black dummies.

      Oh wait, they already have, numerous times.

      Let me guess, you're black.

    20. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an explanation for observations.

      White people and Asians are smarter than blacks. They have bigger and more complex brains than blacks.
      Blacks have never developed a civilisation. They can barely figure out how to feed themselves.
      All throughout history, in every time and all over the world the black has always been at the bottom of the heap.

      Why is this ? Seeing as IQ is the best predictor of success it's not hard to see why.

    21. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Denisovans are NAMED from a cave in Siberia where their remains were discovered. They met the original strain as it moved east from Europe.

      Do try and keep up.

    22. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Don't be ridiculous. A nation of high IQ white people will absolutely wipe the floor with a nation of black dummies.

      See, the problem with that theory is that it's untestable, as it requires a nation of high IQ white people. Not a nation of people who ride obesity scooters at Wal-Mart and complain that chip bags and soda bottles are hard to open.

      Let me guess, you're black.

      Blond, blue-eyed, and aware that I'm no better than other groups. Any genetic advantages I have are coupled with similar genetic disadvantages, and only work in my favour for a specific environment[*] that no longer is relevant in the modern world.

      [*]: Cold climate low light environment where sugars are hard to come by, and where RNA viruses are more of a threat than bacteria.

    23. Re: It's a slippery slope, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > White people and Asians are smarter than blacks.

      Socioeconomic and cultural factors

      > They have bigger and more complex brains than blacks.

      Brain size differences between men and women are much greater than the race differences in brain size, yet men and women have the same average IQ.

      > Blacks have never developed a civilisation.

      Moors?

      > They can barely figure out how to feed themselves.

      When, why and where the first African farmers settled in Southern Africa

      > All throughout history, in every time and all over the world the black has always been at the bottom of the heap.

      *Ahem* Moors?

  7. Ahhh... by azcoyote · · Score: 1

    So that’s "safe sex."

    --
    Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
  8. Just to be clear, before I fire-up Tinder... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 0

    If I fuck a Neanderthal, it will help give me resistance to ancient pathogens? Got it.

    Lemme see... no, no, no... no, she's obviously H. Sapiens... no, not enough hair on that one, I can, like, straight up see her skin. Maybe she just shaves, but I'm not going to chance it. No. No. No... damn... a cute Neanderthal chick turns out to be hard to find on Tinder. Neanderthals DID have opposable thumbs, RIGHT? Moving on... nope, she's clearly Cro-magnon... no... no... no... (sigh).

    You can all laugh now, but when global anthropogenic climate change thaws a pocket of bacteria from 150,000 years ago... ...and it starts wiping everyone out but me, it is I who will have the last laugh!

    Me, and my hawt, hawt, hairy, Neanderthal girlfriend.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  9. Explains why by AdamStarks · · Score: 2

    she decided to marry me.

    1. Re: Explains why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't beat em, rape em, right Brett?

  10. A virus may cause change in sexual orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some scientists believe that this virus, which still exists today, may have driven dinosaurs to extinction.

    1. Re: A virus may cause change in sexual orientation by jd · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, no.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  11. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    On the other hand it could be the evil democratic humans raping the kindly humane neaderthals. Or on the other hand it could be the evil nazi neaderthals raping the friendly humans.

    Point is before we can evaluate this scientific story we need to determine which political party the Neaderthals and humans represented. Once we know the correct political affiliations we can scientifically detemermine how to evaluate the news story.

    Your political party is gay, mine rocks.

      Only by killing and destroying everyone who does not believe in the correct political party can we ensure people and puppies can live free in a wholesome loving society. Remeber, if someone does not agrre 100 percent with the beliefs that were given to you by the society you grew up on they are evil and must be killed. Hooray for our side. The side of justice, love, civility, and puppies. That is right. If you dont subscribe to my party and its universal truths, you want to kill puppies.

  12. JAIL THEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They all deserve to go to jail for raping minors.

    USA needs a time machine to prosecute them.

    1. Re: JAIL THEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Achtung! Neandertals are discriminated by evil sapiens species. #meetoo

    2. Re: JAIL THEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #meSnoo

  13. Despite the juvenile comments so far... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 2

    ...this is pretty interesting in that it demonstrates the value of genetic diversity in helping humans evolve survival mechanisms at the genetic level. We've long known that viral imprinting bestows resistance to certain those viruses, but zooming this out to a more macro level is very fascinating.

    You may now continue with the school-yard level jokes....

    1. Re:Despite the juvenile comments so far... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by your comment you are 2.5% Neanderthal.

    2. Re:Despite the juvenile comments so far... by mentil · · Score: 1

      It's been known for a while that interbreeding with Neanderthals gave Europeans various genetic benefits. It'd stand to reason that'd include immune system benefits.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    3. Re:Despite the juvenile comments so far... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      If you'd like to dump cold water on everyone you can point out that this was certainly rape. There could have been no consent in such a situation. European men went out to rape Neanderthal females. Rape culture.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Despite the juvenile comments so far... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of evidence that the fathers were from both species.

    5. Re:Despite the juvenile comments so far... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly these victims have no voice. I demand an FBI investigation into homo sapiens sapiens! #MeToo

    6. Re:Despite the juvenile comments so far... by gtall · · Score: 1

      No, it demonstrates the value of a bit extra fur to entice the other sex.

    7. Re:Despite the juvenile comments so far... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another accusation without proof.

      Where was the party?
      How did they get to the party?
      Who else was at the party?
      How many beers were involved?

  14. Is she really going out with him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street
    From my window I'm staring while my coffee goes cold
    Look over there (where?)
    There, there's a lady that I used to know
    She's married now or engaged or something, so I'm told

    Is she really going out with him?
    Is she really gonna take him home tonight?
    Is she really going out with him?
    'Cause if my eyes don't deceive me, there's something going wrong around here

  15. Moral of this story is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To keep fucking other species until we gain additional immunity from stuff! Challenge accepted!

  16. Scientific Consensus At Last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it appears to be good for the well-being of the species that we inherently fsck anything that moves. How is this news going to be received by the #metoo movement?

    1. Re:Scientific Consensus At Last by PPH · · Score: 1

      How is this news going to be received by the #metoo movement?

      As an aside; how are we supposed to read that? Pound me too?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re: Scientific Consensus At Last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #meSnoo .

  17. Interbreeding, not 'having sex' by Martin+S. · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Having sex' didn't give people protection, that is just poor use of language. The offspring from Interbreeding would have the benefit greater genetic diversity.

    1. Re:Interbreeding, not 'having sex' by mentil · · Score: 1

      I prefer the explanation that sexually-transmitted retroviruses modified Human DNA to make us super-mutants. Either that or their coupling affected the morphogenetic field.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:Interbreeding, not 'having sex' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that interbreeding involved having sex before the invention of IVF.

    3. Re:Interbreeding, not 'having sex' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a board, inexact assumption, not a statement of fact.

    4. Re: Interbreeding, not 'having sex' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not poor use of language. There are no flaws with the English used. You realize that interbreeding is defined as having sex that results in offspring, right? You're just a complainer in my opinion.

    5. Re:Interbreeding, not 'having sex' by PPH · · Score: 2

      Having sex

      Homo sapiens as well as their distant primate relatives had frequent sex, both during a female's period of fertility as well as outside of it. The physiology of the species hides the females estrus cycle and they are receptive to the act of sex when not fertile as well as when they are. This has important implications for sociological bonding within groups. So I think it's accurate to say that they were 'having sex' both recreationally as well as for the purpose of procreation (if they even gave a thought to this side effect of the fun part).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  18. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some dude fucked your mom and gave birth to an insensitive, rude little prick.

    1. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aspie trigger allert

    2. Re: Really? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Unhousebroken cretin alert.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Niggar alert. Ignore and enslave.

  19. Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.job-katta.com/2018/10/msbte-time-table-2018-19-winter-job.html?m=1

  20. Beastiality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This explains why Yanks are so obsessed with beastial cuckolding.

  21. That is the same line I use today ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just sayin, it still works!

  22. Since when are Neanderthals not humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neanderthal = Homo neanderthalensis

    The "Homo" part means "human."

    1. Re: Since when are Neanderthals not humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, beta cuck faggot.

    2. Re: Since when are Neanderthals not humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you too, Homo.

  23. That's pretty by Ranger · · Score: 1

    fucked up.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  24. campfire and chill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A home sapiens guy and a neanderthal woman were spending time watching campfire and chill

  25. Is this Neanderthal genes only? by jd · · Score: 1

    Denisovans branched off from Neanderthals, so if they're not on the list, we would be able to date when the mutations arose in Neanderthals.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Is this Neanderthal genes only? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Denisovans branched off from Neanderthals

      This is an incorrect or at least incomplete description.
      The common ancestors of all of us (commonly assumed to be h. Heidelbergensis) branched into the ancestors of both Neanderthals and Denisovans on one side, and our ancestors on the other. Then the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans branched a second time. Before that branch, there were no Neanderthals or Denisovans.
      One of the three "species" is not the offshoot of any of the other, but geographically separated cousins (with occasional mixing) evolving in slightly separate directions.

  26. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get fucked

    1. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Get fucked

      I am trying as hard as I can!

  27. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nobody is claiming they're superior genes. They offer a different trade-off (greater cancer risk, greater autoimmune disease risk in exchange for a lower risk from a selection of viruses and bacteria).

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  28. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

    Nonsense.
    Immune system traits are not trade offs ... what a brain dead idea.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  29. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    In fact, while what they try to say can be more or less understood, is basically flawed:
    "how much of this difference comes down to the random drift of DNA being passed on around the globe, and how much is due to natural selection giving those with Neanderthal genes an advantage"

    Well, exactly the same. Unless they provide a new theory of directed evolution, *all* this change comes from random drift.

  30. Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with our semantics is that we've all been taught that humans are homo sapiens.

    The vast majority of humans (except sub-Saharan Africans) are Sapiens-Neanderthal hybrids. If you're white, you're a hybrid.

    Homo Sapiens do exist (and did exist) but that's not us (unless you're a pure-blood sub-Saharan or from a few rarified lines of Pacific Islanders).

    1. Re:Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by arth1 · · Score: 1

      One of the species classifications now[*] is that Neanderthals were Homo Sapiens.
      In this system, we're h.s. Sapiens, and they were h.s. Neanderthalensis.

      [*]: The whole species classification system is fictional and only intended to aid human minds that wants to pigeonhole everything and create boundaries where none exist. You were the same species as your parents, who were the same species as their parents, and so on, going back millions of generations. There is no point where you can say a parent was a different species from the offspring. This means that the whole species concept is fluid and open to interpretation. There is no "archehuman" from which you can define who is the same species and who isn't.

    2. Re:Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speciation results from reproductive isolation. If modern humans could interbreed with Neanderthals, we are by definition the same species.

      ALL humans alive today are Homo sapiens.

    3. Re:Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "The whole species classification system is fictional "

      Then try to breed a walrus and a lioness and see what happens.

      The fact that boundaries are blurred and more focused on synchronic than diachronic differenciation doesn't make the system fictional.

    4. Re:Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by arth1 · · Score: 0

      Speciation results from reproductive isolation. If modern humans could interbreed with Neanderthals, we are by definition the same species.

      This definition is faulty, which is easily proven.
      In Western USA, there's a U shaped valley where lizards live. The ones at one tip of the U can interbreed with those close to it, and those again can interbreed with those close to it, all along the U shape until you get to the other end. But those at the two tips of the U cannot interbreed. Where, exactly, do you put the species boundaries?
      There are also birds where the same property can be seen - one bird can breed with those east of it, who in turn can breed with those east of it, and so on, across the globe, until at the starting point you have two very different birds that are called different species. Where do you place the boundary markers?

    5. Re:Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Then try to breed a walrus and a lioness and see what happens.

      That they cannot breed is not because they are different species, but because the genetic drift from a common ancestor has made them genetically incompatible.

      There existed an animal X that was the common ancestor to both the walrus and the lioness. This is indisputable. You would not say that this ancestor is the same species as either a walrus or a lioness. On the walrus line, there is an unbroken line of descendants from X until we reach what we call a walrus. On this line, at what point was "walrus" species classification obtained? And similarly on the lioness line.

      If you have three animal populations on an island, A, B and C, and A can breed with B and B can breed with C, but A cannot breed with C, how do you delineate the species?

      The "ability to breed" criterion for species can only work if you can exactly define one individual archetype for that species, and define the species as all who can breed with that one particular individual. Whether they can breed with each other is then irrelevant.
      In the above ABC example, if one of the Bs were defined as an archetype for species B, then all of the island would be one species. If one of the As were defined as an archetype, then all As and Bs would be the same species, but C would not. And, in fact, C could not be its own species either, because that would make the Bs part of two species.

      In reality, there are only sliding degrees of differences, and species is a construct that makes it easier for us humans to classify, which we are wont to. But you can trace your lineage up to one of your ancestors without breaking a species line, and then down again to a Pan Troglodytes cousin, again without breaking a species line.

    6. Re:Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's really a meaningless distinction. Species are a useful construct, but actual distinct populations consist of a continuum of genetic variants that shade into each other.

      Saying that an individual animal is a hybrid -- particularly a hybrid of closely related species that routinely produce fertile hybrid offspring -- probably says more about our terminology than it does about that individual.

      We distinguish between H sapiens and H neanderthalis (or according to some H s sapiens and H s neanderthalensis) because it's helpful in publishing papers about the fossil record.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      You are way over-selling this idea that "species are fictional" based solely on the the fact that there is not a sharp division (based on the possibility of reproduction)in every case of speciation. If A cannot breed with C there is absolutely no doubt that they are different species. Nothing fictional about. The existence of B that can interbreed with either does not change that at all. Suppose B did not exist (maybe it never did, or did once and died out). Are A and C now separate species (without being any different) but weren't if (or while) B existed? That would be a bizarre result.

      The definition of "species" you are applying is only one of several (due to differences in biology there cannot be just one definition, what is termed "reproductively isolated sexual species" (and is a useless definition for species with asexual reproduction for example) and is an extreme case and end result of speciation. Well before that point there are different breeding populations, often due the behavioral isolation -- that is, it isn't an accident of geography, it is the populations genetics (reflected in their behavior) that are keeping them separate. This is perfectly reasonable basis for regarding them as separate species.

      This is not at all unusual in science. Many (perhaps most) systems of classification of natural entities have intermediate forms that prevent sharp boundaries in every case. Cloud types for example, or mineral types, and so forth have boundary cases that resemble different categories.

      Or to use another example it would be silly to claim that the concept of "French" and "Italian" as separate languages is fictional since there is a continuum of mutually intelligible local dialects stretching between France and Italy. There is a continuum of dialects but French and Italian are mutually unintelligible, and have different vocabularies and grammars (though they are related).

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    8. Re:Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > This definition is faulty, which is easily proven.

      No. It's your idea that's bogus. It clearly demonstrates that the ancient Aristotle approach to defining species is horribly naieve and doesn't match up with modern ideas about inheritance.

      Your kind of definition would have blacks as a separate species.

      That's both stupid and terribly politically incorrect.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by arth1 · · Score: 0

      That's not my definition. My definition of species is that it's an always misleading term we humans use to make it easier for ourselves to describe what we see. We can say "horse" and "dog" and expect others to understand. We can even say "fox" about both a grey fox and a red fox, and get people to understand, even though a grey fox is more closely related to a terrier than it is to red foxes.

      Your kind of definition would have blacks as a separate species.

      No, your assumption about what my definition is is incorrect. Again, my definition is that "species" is a misleading term that we use to make it easier for ourselves, and doesn't reflect how evolution works.

      So, what is your definition of species? I have yet to hear any definition that is based on logic and doesn't break down when faced with gradual differences and common ancestries, but if you have one that is better than just fiat, I'd love to hear it.

    10. Re:Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "That they cannot breed is not because they are different species"

      You are right. It is because they cannot breed that they are different species, not the other way around.

    11. Re:Humans aren't really Homo Sapiens by arth1 · · Score: 1

      You are right. It is because they cannot breed that they are different species, not the other way around.

      No, that does not follow. There are plenty of examples of individuals that cannot breed with each other but are considered the same species. Animals that reproduce through parthenogenesis are an obvious example, as they don't have sexual reproduction, but an Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua are considered the same species, yet cannot breed (while coyotes and wolves are considered different species, but can).

      Again, "species" is a concept we apply to "similar" forms of life, without having a firm definition or boundaries. It's for our convenience, because most humans are exceptionally bad at analogue thinking, much preferring everything to fall neatly into a small number of boxes. So we make up boxes, like "blue" or "fox" or "nut", and then later try to retrofit rules that explain the choices we made. But in the case of "species", no such rule stand up to even simple tests, and we continue to name species through fiat.

      "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
      -- Humpty Dumpty, Lewis Carroll

  31. "Humans having sex with Neanderthals" by zmooc · · Score: 2

    I keep finding this a weird thing to say; obviously, us and Neanderthals procreated with great success. Therefore we have been the same species, we just followed different migratory paths at different times and later merged again (probably with all kinds of conflicts because that's human nature). "Humans having sex with Neanderthals" thus makes no sense. It's as odd as saying "humans having sex with Caucasians". It makes no sense because we are are the same species. We may not all be Neanderthals like we're not all Caucasian or Asian but we probably all are Congoid. And we definitely are all humans. And so were Neanderthals. Let's stop this weird display phrenology and just call Neanderthals what they were: an interesting group of pretty plain humans.

    (Or am I missing something here?)

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
    1. Re:"Humans having sex with Neanderthals" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. "Humans" (sub Saharans excepted) are in fact, sapiens/neanderthal hybrids. Period.

      The notion that "we" are homo sapiens is absurd. We clearly aren't as anyone's DNA will immediately exhibit.

      Homo sapiens do still exist, but they are a small minority of the world's population, limited to just one region.

    2. Re:"Humans having sex with Neanderthals" by zmooc · · Score: 1

      Boy. Forgive my English, but it's just that I'm one of the first generation of humans that's in the process merging with the native English people that followed a different migratory path and now dominate the culture of our planet:p If feel as if this may be very well be the final big merger of human families on this planet, though.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    3. Re:"Humans having sex with Neanderthals" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like the ideological baggage, that comes with it, but this is why we are making a distinction in the terms of species and race.

      Neanderthals, homo sapiens and Denisovans certainly were all members of the same species, but through geographical isolations of several thousand years, they have developped into seperate races.

      It's important to add, though, that those races have drifted further apart, than, for instance, today's Caucasians and today's Polinesians.

    4. Re:"Humans having sex with Neanderthals" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Neanderthals, homo sapiens and Denisovans certainly were all members of the same species, but through geographical isolations of several thousand years, they have developped into seperate races.

      Race is an outmoded concept, and they were by definition the same species if they could interbreed, so one finally has to accept that they were just humans with different groups of genes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:"Humans having sex with Neanderthals" by the_povinator · · Score: 1
      RE: "they were by definition the same species if they could interbreed"

      That is not quite correct. The definition of species is complex and at times a little subjective. There are many pairs of species that *can* interbreed with a certain amount of success, but don't normally do so in the wild. Consider: bison/cattle, lion/tiger.

      --
      The .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.
    6. Re:"Humans having sex with Neanderthals" by Empiric · · Score: 2

      (Or am I missing something here?)

      You're missing that "species" is arbitrary, but conceptually unavoidable.

      Species problem

      There is no objective physical indicator for delineating a species transition. Science will never offer you one, and never will be able to.

      Of more concern is having a proposed mechanism to differentiate yourself meaningfully not simply from Neanderthals, but from animals in general.

      Are you a Philosophical (as contrasted from Methodological) Naturalist (broadly, "atheist")? Were Neanderthals human?

      Minor question, overall, as I don't grant you the status of "human" -now-. Why? Because your worldview offers no basis for you to claim any special status for your particular DNA permutation, and in a generous attempt to "respect how you self-identify" in fine P.C. tradition. I won't argue your insistence that you have no reason to consider you to have anything like "rights" in contrast to other DNA.

      Enjoy your world of "only science exists". I'll be listening to some Led Zeppelin, even though any claims to their (or any other musicians') quality of music are undemonstrable by science, and therefore by some standards (particularly those of Dawkins sycophants) "unscientific". And by followup equivalent equivocation, such aesthetic quality does not exist.

      Who says evolution lacks a sense of irony? Enjoy your 0% survival rate.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    7. Re:"Humans having sex with Neanderthals" by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Race is an outmoded concept, and they were by definition the same species if they could interbreed, so one finally has to accept that they were just humans with different groups of genes.

      The ability to interbreed does not necessarily make them a single species. The concept of strict sexual reproductive isolation is a limiting case for the definition of species for sexual species (it is useless for asexual ones). When breeding sterility between populations exists it definitely indicates different species.

      But H.s.sapiens and H.s. neanderthalensis (and the Denisovans) are considered sub-species currently.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  32. title factually wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sex didn't give them protection. It gave the offspring protection. And also, since there's noone around with a more than a single digit percentage of Neanderthal DNA, those with a high amount of Neanderthal ancestry also seemed to have died without procreating.

    1. Re:title factually wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      those with a high amount of Neanderthal ancestry also seemed to have died without procreating.

      Note sure I believe you..

      In generation one, John h.sapiens and Mary h.neanderthal have a baby, that child is 50% h.neanderthal.

      That 50% hybrid goes on to give birth to a baby fathered by a 100% h.sapiens, the resulting baby is 25% h.neanderthal.

      Within a few generations the h.neanderthal DNA is in the single digits.

      How do you come to the conclusion that humans with high percentage h.neanderthal DNA died without procreating? Because it's fairly obvious that to me that many of them did successfully procreate.

      Also don't forget that until 100 years ago, high infant mortality rates were "normal", even with

    2. Re:title factually wrong by PPH · · Score: 1

      those with a high amount of Neanderthal ancestry also seemed to have died without procreating.

      But at least they were a shoo-in for Supreme Court confirmation.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  33. Hybrid vigor by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    It has been long known that breeding (having kids) with those distantly related to you is likely to produce healthier offspring. So: if you want healthy kids: choose a partner who has a different ancestry to you -- domeone of a different race is an easy way of doing it. Having said that what I have said is simplistic, not everyone has equally ''good'' genes, so choosing someone who is: healthy, strong, intelligent, ... is also good -- these are the characteristics that many find attractive anyway. The mating game is largely about producing healthy kids - even if we do not realise it.

    1. Re:Hybrid vigor by the_povinator · · Score: 2

      That's true up to a certain point but once you go too distant, it ceases to be true. Scientists believe the immediate offspring of sapiens and Neanderthals would, in most cases, not have been healthy and might not have even survived, because their genes were not that compatible. That's why only a small minority of Neanderthal genes survived many millennia of natural selection in predominantly Homo Sapiens poplations.

      --
      The .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.
    2. Re:Hybrid vigor by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      The optimum degree of inter-relatedness, as measured by fertility, is one equivalent to being third cousins, see for example this.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    3. Re:Hybrid vigor by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      That is not exactly true. Hybrid vigour is something you mostly see in deeply inbred populations. When we breed different rabbit breeds together to create hybrid vigour we are breeding two inbred rabbits that are still very very genetically similar together to fix the issues of the inbreeding. You don't see the same vigour in healthy populations, and outbreeding can produce some very bad results when it is between two very different animals. Look around, there's a reason that mules, or sheep goat hybrids have not replaced their ancestors. This is something we see both in nature and in agriculture, purebreds predominate.

      We see a similar thing in humans. Human hybrids are generally less healthy and this is only exacerbated by the medical community being unable to perform many life saving procedures on them due to even their parents not being a genetic matches for them in some circumstances.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:Hybrid vigor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just hope you don't get leukemia or other serious issues. http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html# Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue

  34. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we all know why the Europeans have such buck Neanderthal teeth.

  35. Wait what? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    If we're descended from Neanderthals why would we need to breed with them to gain their genes?

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Wait what? by gtall · · Score: 1

      We are not. About 700,000-600,000 years ago, there was a common ancestor.

      But truth be known, what really happened back then was that some of us were a bit more furry than others of us. A great controversy sprung up about the meaning of fur. Eventually it was decided that the furry ones and the less furry ones would separate into two groups to preserve civility.

      Cats, realizing their chance had come at last, cozied up to the less furry ones knowing they secretly desired fur. They also cozied up to the furry ones passing themselves off as their foreign cousins. Cats have reaped the benefits ever since and have no intention of stopping their control of the human race.

  36. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Took the rest of the world combined to beat 'em.

  37. Humans: ANYTHING THAT MOVES! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Humans are, collectively, Captain Jack Harkness!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  38. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior gene by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Wait... you actually think it was Germany vs. the world? I think you may be missing a dozen or so nations.

  39. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by arth1 · · Score: 2

    Nonsense.
    Immune system traits are not trade offs ... what a brain dead idea.

    TANSTAAFL applies to evolution too, and even more so than most other situations.
    We only have around 30,000 genes, which are largely multi-purpose and used in combination with other genes.
    Because the gene itself has multiple effects, any genetic mutation is also likely to have more than one effect. Given that any change is far more likely to be for the worse than for the better, this means that any good change is often linked with one or more bad changes too. For the mutation to survive and propagate, the good change has to outweigh the bad change in that particular environment.

    The most commonly cited mutation that has multiple effects, both good and bad, is sickle cell anaemia, where an affected individual also has high resistance to malaria. That trade-off is why sickle cell anaemia has not been either bred out or become ubiquitous.
    There are others, like the HLA-B27 antigen which not only drives up the risk of conditions like Ankylosing Spondylitis, but also increases the resistance to influenza type A, and has a small but significant correlation with slower progression of HIV.
    At some point in the past, the tradeoffs must have been good for the population where this antigen is most prevalent.

  40. Terrible clickbait headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't necessary to say "Having Sex With" when what you really mean is "mating with", which is actually much more accurate.

    How good the sex was isn't what matters here, it's about actually reproducing and raising kids successfully.

  41. Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it racist to say that being a hybrid gave "those with Neanderthal genes an advantage", and then say that many Africans have no Neanderthal DNA? Do people read what what they write?

    1. Re: Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means the n1gg3rs are not quite human.

      We all know it, deep down. Now it's been proven

  42. Re: A virus may cause change in sexual orientatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you mean no? Many gays say that they were born that way. If you're suggesting be that we don't exchanged DNA with viruses, then I'm guessing you're not into a science.

  43. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior gene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually the writer said just the opposite of that you claim. The article said sex gave "those with Neanderthal genes an advantage". Why not debate the topic instead of changing the topic.

  44. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not exactly brain surgery is it?

  45. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't be. Otherwise they are the ones who would have been named Homo Erectus.

  46. Willing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After a year and a half of being single again, a little Neanderthal love would be fine. #Willing.

  47. Neanderthals having sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure it wasn't consensual. Neanderthals had sex with anything that moved.

  48. Re: A virus may cause change in sexual orientatio by jd · · Score: 1

    Of course we exchange DNA with viruses. That's how mammals acquired the placenta.

    Yes, sexual orientation is something you're born with. It's acquired via hormones and other chemical signals at around 6 months into the pregnancy. Nothing to do with viruses.

    How do we know this? Viruses are species-specific. Homosexuality exists in all mammals at around the same percentage (and some fish, reptiles and birds). Obviously, you want a cause that applies to all mammals (since that has to be a common mechanism) and ideally applies to a much broader portion of the entire animal kingdom.

    A virus can't do this. A mechanism for modifying the brain as it forms - that can. Since we've actually studied the brain as it forms (it's an offshoot of the human connectome project), we know quite a bit about such mechanisms.

    Sorry, that's how it is.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  49. Damn shame such crossbreeding happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It also unfortunately produced the likes of APK.

  50. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior gene by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    The only one worth mentioning was Japan and it was on the other side of the planet entirely. It didn't get nearly as much "attention" as Germany did.

    Mussolini was pretty much Hilter's mascot.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  51. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    If you can't survive the HIV epidemic you won't have to worry about cancer. The advantage here is clear. If you can survive long enough to breed and have viable offspring, that's all that really matters.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  52. Re:The new Bell Curve controversy by jedidiah · · Score: 0

    > There's no such thing as "white genes"

    This article is pretty much a solid counterargument against that.

    There are in fact genes that are associated with various racial and ethnic populations. They give rise to genetic diseases associated with various races and ethnicities. They also limit who you can get an organ or bone marrow translplant from.

      A little bit of spit can tell us EXACTLY what your racial and ethnic makeup is.

    Value judgements are another matter entirely.

    "white genes" are very real.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  53. Re:The new Bell Curve controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are in fact genes that are associated with various racial and ethnic populations.

    Please enlighten us and tell us what they are, because to my memory there are only genes associated with certain populations, which do not divide simply into convenient "ethnic" or "racial" groups.

  54. Re: f*cking retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Naw man, he f*cked her so hard that she and her baby both ended up immune to the plague!

    p.s. Obligatory "Now that's f*cking retarded."

  55. Momentarily correct misreading by Mr.+Protocol · · Score: 1

    I momentarily read the article title as, "Humans Having Sex With Neanderthals Gave Us Protection Against Ancient Academics". This is plausible on so many levels that I rather think someone should write that article.

  56. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by dryeo · · Score: 0

    Matters if the children survive to breed as well, which means having parents, family or at least the tribe being able to raise the children.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  57. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't tell if you're trying to be funny, but if not, allergies and type 1 diabetes say you're wrong. Google for autoimmune disorders to start learning about more.

  58. Doesn't Always Work by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    And humans having sex with monkeys gave us AIDs.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  59. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

    Intelligence to an extent trumps allergies and type 1 diabetes, though. If you have intelligence, like modern humans do, you can learn to avoid allergens and invent insulin pumps.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  60. ME KRONK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SEX GOOD!

  61. Re: Europeans saving the world with superior genes by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    allergies and type 1 diabetes are defects in the immune system. With some severe enough to be bred out of the species quite quickly in general, or at least continue to be a relatively minor issue.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  62. It Was A Sacrifice. For The Species! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Honey, I had to mate with that Neanderthal, it's for the genes, I swear! We have to save our children! It meant nothing to me!"