Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Non Africans are 1% to 4% Neanderthals
Topic Started: May 6 2010, 09:23 PM (8,922 Views)
Fatface81
Full Member
 *  *  *
Mutations may occur at the same rate no matter what, but they do not necessarily happen to the same genes no matter what. These genes could have easily been common to both the OOA and Neanderthals. Much like African Microcephalin is unchanged since their split with Neanderthals. And some populations have a larger gene pool then others, so obviously they have attained more surviving mutations in their population. Do I have to re-quote the people where they said
Quote:
 
Although gene flow from Neandertals into modern humans when they first left sub-Saharan Africa seems to be the most parsimonious model compatible with the current data, other scenarios are also possible. For example, we cannot currently rule out a scenario in which the ancestral population of present-day non-Africans was more closely related to Neandertals than the ancestral population of present-day Africans due to ancient substructure within Africa (Fig. 6). If after the divergence of Neandertals there was incomplete genetic homogenization between what were to become the ancestors of non-Africans and Africans, present-day non-Africans would be more closely related to Neandertals than are Africans. In fact, old population substructure in Africa has been suggested based on genetic (81) as well as paleontological data (86).
?

And the evidence that having wrinkly ape-like skin having anything to do with clothes is? And the evidence that they definitely without a doubt made clothes and not just say, blankets, tents, belts, bags and other such things is? And note that I didn't mention anything about chimp fur, something that I consider unlikely but possible. The time in the split between gorilla body lice and human pubic lice suggest the head and pubic hair were well separated long, long ago. Long before even Neanderthals, though it is potentially possible they re-evolved fur.
Edited by Fatface81, May 7 2010, 11:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
topos
Member Avatar
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
O.k., JarHed, I assumed you were referring to fur.

Anyway, you equate African substructure with ancient genes under consideration and that equation is itself not bona fide.

If someone throws two ten sided dices, then you can say bona fide that the result wasn't 47, but you can't say bona fide that the result was 47.

Let's entertain the hypothesis that those genes were ancient, that is part of the genetic makeup of the most recent common ancestor of homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

Let's picture the genome of that ancestor as a black computer screen. Mutations will change the color of single pixels to all kind of different colors. If the genes under consideration are ancient, then they correspond to a region of black dots. If two people procreate then there will on average 50% of the pixels of the one parent be inherited and the other 50% from the other.

That means that the average descendant after n generations will have a number of mutations that is only depending on n and not on any specific events before him, given that population numbers are high enough. It is of course possible that some people will have accumulated more mutations than others, but when you compare two groups, their averages, not their variance, will be the same and will be the same over any sufficiently large region of the screen that you determined in advance.

So for the OOA ancestor population to show more black points on average in the Neanderthal black region than the other African population(s) is simply not to be expected under this hypothesis.

If there was ancient African substructure, then it will again bona fide have been due to some link between the OOA population and Neanderthals - the whole question would have just been pushed back in time.

---

The above reasoning holds only if you have meaningful averages. Small isolated groups that stayed isolated would have behaved differently. However it would then again be surprising that of all those groups it was the OOA population that stayed mostly black within the Neanderthal region (though not nearly as surprising as else.)

All this is referring to the time prior to OOA, because since OOA "no time" has passed in these matters.
Edited by topos, May 8 2010, 01:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fatface81
Full Member
 *  *  *
One population would have to, just going by random chance be more black in the Neanderthal regions on average. Mutations in different populations all occurring in the same few genes would be unlikely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
topos
Member Avatar
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
What you say is true for small regions, but not for big regions.

I should however clarify my "ancient substructure" remark. There would need to be a carrier for that providing the link I was talking about.
Edited by topos, May 8 2010, 01:27 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fatface81
Full Member
 *  *  *
All my point is, is that there is no solid proof for human Neanderthal mixture, and that even the people who did the study accepted that. I am no expert on any of this and my interest has ran out, as I can not disprove that there was interbreeding. I can only point out that there are other possibilities and have done so. This conversation cannot continue past this point with no further information, and I have already stated what was important to state.

So now all that remains is to see what this information says about how Neanderthals are distinct from us. From what it said there seemed to me some metabolic differences as well as skin and brain differences. I would be interested in knowing exactly what these differences were.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Formota
Full Member
 *  *  *
Ok, there's alot I'm really confused about.

Do the people at Max Plaanck believe neanderthals were human or not? And why are they saying africans are more distant from eurasians than neanderthals? Even if introgression occured, it happened not long after the OOA migrations, wherein neanderthals would have been separated from humans for several hundred thousand years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
topos
Member Avatar
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Europians are closer to Neanderthals than Africans over a certain region of the genome, not over the whole genome.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
samysamy25
Senior Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Ok ! Guys ....I read some comments on Dienekes Blog
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/05/tales-of-neanderthal-admixture-in.html
someone shows his Iberian Agenda but he couldn't to explain why sub-saharans africans are Not closer to Neanderthals ?
then Go back to our Homo-sapiens Findings in Near east:

Quote:
 
Scientists differ on the origin of the Skhul/Qafzeh people. Some see them as members of an early modern stock that evolved within the Levant (Vandermeersch, 1989). Others believe they migrated into the Levant from Africa and were related to the early modern humans of that continent, despite certain physical differences between them and early modern Africans (Rightmire, 2001: 235). Unfortunately, archeological evidence of a link between the early modern humans of the Levant and their contemporaries in adjacent territories of Africa cannot as yet be demonstrated due to methodological problems that hinder comparisons between the two regions (Vermeersch, 2001).

Some scholars also propose ties between the Skhul/Qafzeh people and the Levantine Neanderthals, since the physical features of these two groups overlap. One theory attributes these shared traits to interbreeding between indigenous occupants of the Levant, early modern humans moving into the region from Africa, and Neanderthals coming in from Europe (Kramer, et al, 2001). Still, the apparent persistence of Neanderthal-like and modern-like morphologies in the region suggests that the mixing of these populations was not total. Other scholars, however, deny the existence of separate, interbreeding groups and place the Skhul/Qafzeh people and Levantine Neanderthals into a single, diverse lineage whose traits they believe were shaped by gene flow from nearby regions, particulary Africa
(Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen, 1998).


http://karmak.org/archive/2003/01/westasia.htm

it so clear that first OOA were mixed or Hybrids AKA Neanderthaloids forms
(Archaic Homo-sapiens species ) who still inving in the near East around 60.000BC to 50.000 Like Kebara
and in East africa around 20.000 like Jebel Sahaba

for example in the middle East we have Evidence that Homo-sapiens share a same culture with Neanderthaloids (Archaic Homo-sapiens) and they lived between Them at this Time! I meant The Aurignacians of Near East wich are typically Homo-sapiens originally from North Africa (Lybia) and before that another variety of Modern of Homo-sapiens in North west africa

Posted Image

http://books.google.co.ma/books?id=JAca1F3qG34C&lpg=PA39&ots=wWYDxvjBCH&dq=Dar%20es-Soltan%20II%20aterian&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q=&f=false

about East africa we have Evidence that the Archaic forms of Homo-sapiens like Jebel Sahaba Nazlet khater wadi Halfa etc etc... are semilar to our Like - Neanderthaloid species who were also originally and semilar to those forms of North africa

Posted Image

http://books.google.co.ma/books?id=_h8VCF9LeXwC&pg=PA410&lpg=PA410&dq=dar+es+soltan+jebel+sahaba+aterians&source=bl&ots=6tnDmPZoAq&sig=C3Q7kf1-Xx5p_ghEADQFWLSiXok&hl=fr&ei=dPogS6OTBo-i_AaTmditCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false




Edited by samysamy25, May 8 2010, 04:56 PM.
Arabs And East African Sub-Saharan Ancestory

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBzELv2mXVw[/youtube]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Formota
Full Member
 *  *  *
How do you know it was just one region of the genome? That'd make sense, but they've been really unclear.

I thought it'd be interesting to look up what the freaks over at Stormfront make of this: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t706174/

Still, this post is illuminating: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t706174-5/#post8087635

Quote:
 
The gist of the article is that they have 'reconstructed' approximately 60% of the Neanderthal's genome. In other words they found no completely intact DNA molecules from a single source but are trying to extrapolate from whatever was salvagable from the decayed and corrupted sources they studied and are 'filling in the blanks'! They are saying that from this incomplete decryption they estimate modern Europeans have 4% Neanderthal genetic legacy. A chimpanzee has 98% DNA compatibility with modern humans so according to their logic there must have been interbreeding between humans and chimps!
This is scientific nonsense and pure speculation and I suspect there is a politically correct agenda behind it.


Also, Paabo does seem to think neanderthals were human. Really, now that I think about it, neanderthals probably were human and behaviorally the same as us by and large.
Edited by Formota, May 8 2010, 05:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
topos
Member Avatar
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Well, Dienekes' scenario is also possible, but I do not really think that homogenity between Europeans and Asians is inexplicable, since almost all modern Europeans came from Asia maternally and the little influence of paternal E3b (if E3b had higher Neanderthal admixture due to being around in the Middle East for a long time, which is itself questionable) would probably not be noticable.
Edited by topos, May 8 2010, 05:35 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Formota
Full Member
 *  *  *
What about you claiming it's just one region of the genome, though? I'd like confirmation on that.

Jarhed
 
They could just be archaic traits. Edit: The scientists admitted that none of this is definite proof for Neanderthal ancestry. So my work here is done.

Edit2: The differences between us and Neanderthals are what we should be discussing now that we have proved the incomplete certainty of Neanderthal ancestry.


So what is it? Not definitive or what? Where did they say any of this?
Edited by Formota, May 8 2010, 05:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
topos
Member Avatar
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Formota, I posted a link, the last link in my opening post. There you will find (almost) all information that you could wish for.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimson Guard
Member Avatar
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Topos
 
E3b (if E3b had higher Neanderthal admixture due to being around in the Middle East for a long time, which is itself questionable) would probably not be noticable.


It is probably better not to speculate over which Chromosome( or even mtDNA because we do not know exactly what these scientists are up to fully and not sure they know themselves ) may of carried what-- although E is the Eurasian Adam and all those other markers are descended from it would be suspect to then as well.

Posted Image





The African Neanderthal or Heidelbergensis(Rhodesian man) here they gave the skin tone of a gorilla:

Posted Image
Posted Image

Here is the European Heidelbergensis or what they also call Homo-Antecessor(based on a fossil from Spain):

Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
samysamy25
Senior Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *
this Heidelbergensis of spain is an Achaulean from north Africa called Anthropus Mauretanicus wich is Evolved from an Homo-Habilis before 1 Million of Years
he is lighter and more Evolved than Rhodesian man

Posted Image

Edited by samysamy25, May 8 2010, 06:45 PM.
Arabs And East African Sub-Saharan Ancestory

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBzELv2mXVw[/youtube]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Formota
Full Member
 *  *  *
So is there any real reason people are acting like this finding is definitive?
On another note, I've seen some references to gene transfer a number of times in discussion about neanderthals. Frost critiques it here: http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/05/ask-rhino.html

But Cochran replies:

Quote:
 
When you mix two such populations, you can end up with the best of both. This often works in selection experiments with domesticates. I figure it if actually happens to the point of being a major tool of agricultural genetics, it might just be theoretically possible as well. If you mixed Tibetans and Bolivian Indians, you would most likely (in the long run, after selection had had its way) end up with a population that was better adapted to high altitude than either today. Certainly no worse.

As for the notion that we could only get advantageous alleles affecting cognition if Neanderthals were just as smart or smarter than us - wrong. Look, we got a useful gene from a retrovirus once upon a time (syntycin) and that doesn't imply that retroviruses are really placental mammals.

On a related note, mules are smarter than either horses or donkeys. Go figure.

I'll bet money that there are _chimp_ alleles that would confer a fitness advantage if inserting into humans today. Quite possibly a cognitive advantage.

There is not the slightest reason to believe that the ancestors of the current inhabitants of New Guinea were hunter-gatherers in the steppe-tundra belt 20k years ago. Maybe a smidgen, if you count the Lapita contribution in the coastal tribes, but the known mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes in PNG split off from other Asians a long time ago, more like 50k years.


As for alleles meshing well in such a closely related species: happens often. Taurine and zebu cattle are the result of separate domestications, from stocks of wild cattle that diverged around 500k years ago - more divergent than human and Neanderthals. But zebu genes have introgressing like crazy into an originally taurine African stock - because they work better in the heat and aridity. Creeping zebuization has affected the Middle East as well over the past few thousand years.

On the other hand, they don't mesh every time, which is undoubtedly why we don't see any Neanderthal mtDNA or Y-chromsome lineages today. This indicates that Neanderthal mtDNA had a selective disadvantage of, say, half a percent. Plausible if they were energy wasters.

By the way, we see cattle populations in Egypt that are a quarter zebu (on autosomal genes) but don't show any zebu mtDNA _or_ y-chromosomes.


I really don't know what he's talking about. Is he reffering to hybrid vigor or what? That form of gene transfer is alot different from the kind that occurs among bacteria and direct chemical transfers. And what does he mean by the selective value of mtDNA?
Edited by Formota, May 8 2010, 07:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fatface81
Full Member
 *  *  *
The reason people are acting like this is definitive is that they didn't bother to read the whole article.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710
Right next to the bottom of the article is where they say it is not definitely due to Neanderthal ancestry. Apparently most people never get that far.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
samysamy25
Senior Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *
JarHed
May 8 2010, 08:20 PM
The reason people are acting like this is definitive is that they didn't bother to read the whole article.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710
Right next to the bottom of the article is where they say it is not definitely due to Neanderthal ancestry. Apparently most people never get that far.
Posted Image

[blockquote]Samples and sites from which DNA was retrieved. (A) The three bones from Vindija from which Neandertal DNA was sequenced. (B) Map showing the four archaeological sites from which bones were used and their approximate dates (years B.P.)[/blockquote]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710

Oh ! Yeah ,these samples were retrieved from the Neanderthals who lived in Europe that had some genetic Connections to Other Neanderthaloid species specially those of Near East then I am Right too it's Pretty semilar to the second OOA wave from the Near East around 60.000 to 40.000BC they were the Aurignacians a bit mixed with the Local Homo-Neanderthalensis .that's why they are closer to the classical Neanderthals of Europe
Edited by samysamy25, May 8 2010, 08:32 PM.
Arabs And East African Sub-Saharan Ancestory

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBzELv2mXVw[/youtube]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Formota
Full Member
 *  *  *
Where, specifically, does it say that though?

People like John Hawks and GNXP thinks this means it's set in stone for neanderthal ancestry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimson Guard
Member Avatar
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Guys I wouldnt get all worked up over this right now, they could find out they were in error. Their main thing is that East Asians carry Neanderthal or some other hominid ancestry, which probably can only be possible if there was an outve Asia exodus rather than one wave out've Africa. Also this isnt proof of Evolution either, just intermixture with another species which begs the question, where did we come from if we are not evolved Neanderthals?! Moreover there is theories that apes are descended from humans rather than vice versa, which I'm somewhat more inclined to believe.



Another problem with geneticists is that they all believe and want to link all humans with San people(whom we are to believe go back 100,000 years), which is preposterous within itself.
Edited by Crimson Guard, May 8 2010, 11:37 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Formota
Full Member
 *  *  *
Quote:
 
Guys I wouldnt get all worked up over this right now, they could find out they were in error. Their main thing is that East Asians carry Neanderthal or some other hominid ancestry, which probably can only be possible if there was an outve Asia exodus rather than one wave out've Africa.


They say this could have been due to humans interbreeding with neanderthals in the levant, shortly after leaving Africa.

Quote:
 
Also this isnt proof of Evolution either,


You don't believe in evolution?

Quote:
 
just intermixture with another species which begs the question, where did we come from if we are not evolved Neanderthals?!


Homo erectus, which neanderthals are also descended from. We diverged from them a few hundred thousand years ago.

Quote:
 
Moreover there is theories that apes are descended from humans rather than vice versa, which I'm somewhat more inclined to believe.


What the hell are those?

Quote:
 
Another problem with geneticists is that they all believe and want to link all humans with San people(whom we are to believe go back 100,000 years), which is preposterous within itself.


Why?
Edited by Formota, May 8 2010, 11:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Population Genetics · Next Topic »
Add Reply