Genetic History & Are you part-Neanderthal?

[Michaelangelica]

I am starting this thread because I didn't know where else to put this information about our Neanderthal brothers.

I thought perhaps it forms a part of a bigger topic that of Genetic History where all sorts of claims are made about pre-literate-history. Where we came from, how we got there, etc., all based on changes noticed in Genetic material.

I am not sure how this is done so any enlightenment would be welcome.

 

This is the link for the article:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1722109.htm

Are you part-Neanderthal?

Jennifer Viegas

Discovery News

 

Wednesday, 23 August 2006

 

DNA

There may be remnants of Neanderthal genes in the nuclear DNA of people with European ancestors. People of European descent may be 5% Neanderthal, according to a DNA study that questions whether modern humans left Africa and replaced all other existing hominids.

 

The same study, published in the latest issue of the journal PloS Genetics, also says West Africans could be related to an archaic human population.

 

As both groups spread, the findings suggest we all have a bit of archaic DNA in our genes.

[Qfwfq]

A brief excerpt is enough, with the link to the whole thing. Did you not notice the copyright notice at the bottom of that webpage?

 

For some time this type of method has been adding to knowledge glean from archaeology and fossil remains. Yes, I have read some other things about it and it is all very interesting but the method is quite complicated. I know however that a stunningly detailed map of migrations was worked out which cleared up many details that previously weren't determined. This was based on studies of genomes of many people, amongst those whose known ancestors were all local to a place and therefore weren't recent immigrates.

[Michaelangelica]

Sorry Qfwfq I knew I was being bad

 

If natural selection can work in any direction; where do the genes come from for older species/behaviour?

The Junk DNA?

What causes the expression of genes that have not been expressed for eons?

Can we decide to sprout wings?

 

Reverse evolution would occur when genes recently acquired through evolution are lost again, or when genes become reactivated after falling into disuse.

 

Tan has gone as far as to propose that the “reverse evolution” of the family in Turkey affects the mind as well as the body, noting that victims of the syndrome are retarded. Crandall said he doesn’t buy many of Tan’s ideas, but that at least with regard to walking, Tan may have suggested a concept worth testing.

 

Scientific doubts on reverse evolution, Crandall wrote, have nothing to do with a popular misconception that evolution “has no direction.” It does to some extent, he argued—species tend to become better suited to their environment—and that may be irrelevant anyway, since a return to an ancestral state can occur whether or not one thinks of evolution as directed.

 

“I don’t know of any evolutionary biologists who would subscribe to the notion that reverse evolution is impossible,” Crandall wrote. “It doesn’t take long in evolutionary biology to figure out that nothing is impossible!”

 

* * *

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060306_reversfrm.htm

[Michaelangelica]

The Genographic Project aims to sample populations around the globe to trace our deep ancestry.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

Transcript

 

Robyn Williams: Still on genes, do you recall the National Geographic venture we reported over a year ago, taking swabs from people around the world to trace ancestry? Well, here's a brief update from Kim McKay who helped get the idea going.

 

Kim McKay: It's been going very well. With National Geographic, whom I work with from time to time, we created a project called the Genographic Project, and it aims to sample both indigenous populations and the general population around the globe to trace our deep ancestry.

Since we started the project, just over a year and a half ago now, we've sold 170,000 of the cheek swab kits, which is extraordinary.

They're $US100 each, you can buy them at nationalgeographic.com, and it will tell you which haplogroup you belong to. So it will tell you about your deep ancestry going back up to 60,000 years...

 

Robyn Williams: Looking at your DNA.

 

Kim McKay: ...looking at your DNA. I did it and I found out (surprise, surprise) I'm part of haplogroup H which puts me in that group of women who moved first out of Africa into far northern Europe.

Just over one-third of all European women are in haplogroup H and we all look pretty much the same, we're blue eyed and...

Science Show - 2 December 2006 - Genographic project and everyday reductions in carbon emissions

[jungjedi]

oh,i want to do this thing

[Freddy]

I saw a History Channel program on the supposed Neanderthal/Human link last week that confirmed what is reported below.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Homo neanderthalensis

 

H. neanderthalensis lived from about 250,000 to as recent as 30,000 years ago. Also proposed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis: there is ongoing debate over whether the 'Neanderthal Man' was a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or a subspecies of H. sapiens. While the debate remains unsettled, the prevailing view of evidence, collected by examining mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA, currently indicates that little or no gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species. In 1997, Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans… Neanderthals are not our ancestors." Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA confirmed these findings. However, supporters of the multiregional hypothesis point to recent studies indicating non-African nuclear DNA heritage dating to one MYA, as well as apparent hybrid fossils found in Portugal and elsewhere, in rebuttal to the prevailing view.

[CraigD]

Given the evidence from Vincent Plagnol – archaic neanderthals “contribute” at least 5% to the modern human gene pool - and evidence from Mark Mark Stoneking - neandertals are not our ancestors – an obvious conclusion is that these “admixture” genes are shared by a common ancestor of neanderthals and modern humans.

 

I’m very encouraged by the growth in knowledge about archaic hominids. When I last took a physical anthropology course, a quarter century ago, Jean Auel’s “Clan of the Cave Bear” was assigned reading, provoking serious discussion of the possibility that H.Sapiens and H.Neaderthal were a single species, a possibility more recent genetic info and analysis has nearly ruled out.

[Michaelangelica]

indicates that little or no gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and,

This is different from the research I have read

 

See

http://hypography.com/forums/general-science-news/7659-neandertal-genome-deciphered.html?highlight=Neanderthal

OK Guess what

They gave us our brain size!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/sc...ml?ref=science

Quote:

Dr. Lahn and associates discovered that a gene for brain size called microcephalin underwent a significant change 37,000 years ago. Its modified variant, or allele, appeared to confer a fitness advantage on those who possessed it. It is now present in about 70 percent of the world’s population.

 

The new research focused on the two classes of alleles of the brain gene. One appeared to have emerged 1.1 million years ago in an archaic Homo lineage that led to Neanderthals and was separate from the immediate predecessors of modern humans. The 37,000-year date for the other variant immediately suggested a connection with Neanderthals.

 

Dr. Lahn said it did not necessarily show that interbreeding was widespread. It could have been a rare, perhaps even single, event.

[Freddy]

Most studies show very little DNA being shared between the two species. Humans' ancestors were Cro-Magnon and not Neanderthals, who were another species. I could not access the NYTimes article where you quoted from. Every article I have read says we share little DNA with Neanderthals.

News in Science - Neanderthals not at all related to modern humans - 07/03/2003

From the article:

Genetic evidence

 

Mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bones suggests that they and modern humans last shared a common ancestor 500,000 to 600,000 years ago. Genetic surveys of living Eurasians have shown that their genetic variations all derive exclusively from African counterparts probably no more than 100,000 years old.

[Turtle]

The Little Bit of Neanderthal in All of Us

 

Ever since the discovery in 2010 that Neanderthals interbred with the ancestors of living humans, scientists have been trying to determine how their DNA affects people today. Now two new studies have traced the history of Neanderthal DNA, and have pinpointed a number of genes that may have medical importance today.

...

Mr. Vernot and Dr. Akey looked for unusual mutations in the genomes of 379 Europeans and 286 Asians. The segments of DNA that contained these mutations turned out to be from Neanderthals.

 

Both studies suggest that Neanderthal genes involved in skin and hair were favored by natural selection in humans. Today, they’re very common in living non-Africans.

...

[Deepwater6]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25944817

 

Is there an argument that they only brought over the good genes while interbreeding? Say survival of the fittest at the genetic level? I don't think so, I'm sure we aquired the good and the bad when we got together back then. IMHO

[Gregb]

My college roommate had neanderthal traits. One being an extra molar.