Non-Africans Are Part Neanderthal

[streetfighter 2]

Source: http://scienceblog.com/46348/genetic...t-neanderthal/

More info (prior article): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm



That means that some of us are only 96%-99% human (except Mussels who is 100% drongo).

Abstract Written by Damian Labuda et al.
Recent work on the Neandertal genome has raised the possibility of admixture between Neandertals and the expanding population of Homo sapiens who left Africa between 80 and 50 Kya (thousand years ago) to colonize the rest of the world. Here, we provide evidence of a notable presence (9% overall) of a Neandertal-derived X chromosome segment among all contemporary human populations outside Africa. Our analysis of 6,092 X-chromosomes from all inhabited continents supports earlier contentions that a mosaic of lineages of different time depths and different geographic provenance could have contributed to the genetic constitution of modern humans. It indicates a very early admixture between expanding African migrants and Neandertals prior to or very early on the route of the out-of-Africa expansion that led to the successful colonization of the planet.

[FordGT90Concept]

If that's true, that's more significant than it is on the surface. There's been a long standing theory that most of the female Neanderthals died out to a point they could no longer sustain their population so they started breeding with the homo-sapiens.

I suppose that means Africans are a, for lack of a better term, pure-stock of homo sapiens then. That's actually rather surprising because non-Africans tend to have a flatter face and other features that aren't consistent with the Neanderthals. I suppose those traits could be recessive though.

Rather surprising and throws a pie in the face of conventional knowledge. It may also suggest, that to some extent, that Africans are a unique evolutionary speices. Ah hell, the "whiteness" could have been dominent in Neaderthals too!

...they opened a can of worms...

Interesting stuff, but the jury is still out on the 'out of Africa' theory. Also, they've known for a long time that Neanderthals and modern humans occupied many of the same areas at the same time. The only question was whether or not there was any interbreeding.

What I'd like to know now is did modern humans absorb the Neanderthal population by interbreeding or did something else happen that lead to their extinction?

[KainXS]

more research needs to be done, any benefits or negatives

average aussie

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

That means that some of us are only 96%-99% human (except Mussels who is 100% drongo).

Why Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

Source: http://scienceblog.com/46348/genetic...t-neanderthal/

More info (prior article): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2437/38889698.jpg

That means that some of us are only 96%-99% human (except Mussels who is 100% drongo).

someone finally epxlains why republicans exist ! I knew it !

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

someone finally epxlains why republicans exist ! I knew it !

and democrats! its all so obvious now!

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

If that's true, that's more significant than it is on the surface. There's been a long standing theory that most of the female Neanderthals died out to a point they could no longer sustain their population so they started breeding with the homo-sapiens.

I suppose that means Africans are a, for lack of a better term, pure-stock of homo sapiens then. That's actually rather surprising because non-Africans tend to have a flatter face and other features that aren't consistent with the Neanderthals. I suppose those traits could be recessive though.

Rather surprising and throws a pie in the face of conventional knowledge. It may also suggest, that to some extent, that Africans are a unique evolutionary speices. Ah hell, the "whiteness" could have been dominent in Neaderthals too!

...they opened a can of worms...

I have argued for years that there appear to be roughly 3-4 sub species of humanity, each adapted to its enviroment. I could actually see the case of the mongols being more neandrethal.they have the proper features.

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by Mussels

and democrats! its all so obvious now!

I can explain democrats,the estrogen, not effeminent men either.

[streetfighter 2]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

There's been a long standing theory that most of the female Neanderthals died out to a point they could no longer sustain their population so they started breeding with the homo-sapiens.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

...they opened a can of worms...

"Your mom" jokes will never be the same . . .

Originally Posted by twilyth

What I'd like to know now is did modern humans absorb the Neanderthal population by interbreeding or did something else happen that lead to their extinction?

Perhaps it's a bit of both?

Originally Posted by KainXS

more research needs to be done, any benefits or negatives

The 1-4% genetic similarity with Neanderthals is pretty astonishing. IIRC that's roughly the amount that humans are distinct from chimps.

Any functional significance of these shared genes remains to be determined, but that will certainly be a focus for the next stages of this fascinating research. - Professor Chris Stringer

Originally Posted by Mussels

Why Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Because Bendigo, Australia is in the USA!!1 Look, it's even on the map.

@Mussels - It was drawn by Julia Gillard between meetings for the new carbon tax, give the sheila some credit.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

Because Bendigo, Australia is in the USA!!1 Look, it's even on the map.
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7355/mussels.jpg

bitch better be careful, if thats to scale i could get an erection and wipe out half the state.

[bostonbuddy]

Originally Posted by Mussels

bitch better be careful, if thats to scale i could get an erection and wipe out half the state.

maybe Rhode Island

hehehehe jkjk..........

[HossHuge]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

If that's true, that's more significant than it is on the surface.

I agree. So are these scientists saying that if you are Caucasian you may be a little smarter than an African?

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by HossHuge

I agree. So are these scientists saying that if you are Caucasian you may be a little smarter than an African?

Define intellegence ?

[Funtoss]

I m an Indian from FIJI islands!! what does that make me?? :O

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Funtoss

I m an Indian from FIJI islands!! what does that make me?? :O

Confused

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by HossHuge

I agree. So are these scientists saying that if you are Caucasian you may be a little smarter than an African?

Neanderthals, according to their skeletal structure, were considered to be more robust and more ape-like than homo-sapiens which had comparatively large brain cavities (brain mass relative to body mass is a typical way of measuring intelligence among animals). That is to say, homo-sapiens were the brains and Neanderthals were the brawn. Come to think of it, that is a fairly potent combination--at the same time, look at African American's penetration into physical sports like baseball, football (not futball), basketball, and even Olympic events. They have a disproportionately (they are some 20% of the American population but occupy at least 50% of these Grade-A athletic positions) large presence in athletic categories. Maybe it's stereotypes (like whitey needs to be book smart ) or maybe they are simply physically superior. In which case, one would think that homo-sapiens really didn't get much benefit from crossbreeding with Neanderthals.

If homo-sapiens gained any physical prowess from cross-breeding with Neanderthals, it was likely lost between then and now because homo-sapiens continued to rely on their big brains over their big brawn so brawn was genetically bred out through natural selection.

Again, more questions than answers. Like I said, it opened the proverbial can of worms (assuming it is accurate).

Originally Posted by Funtoss

I m an Indian from FIJI islands!! what does that make me?? :O

Indians are from India...

Originally Posted by Wile E

Confused

An excellent deduction!

[HossHuge]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

Define intellegence ?

Point taken.

But, what I meant to say was that people have done atrocious acts with information like this in the past.

[streetfighter 2]

The race card is not allowed to be played in this thread. No one (yet) knows what the functions are of the genes that many humans share with Neanderthals. Even the number of shared genes varies widely (1-4% of human genome).

When that article wrote "non-Africans" it was being specific and referring to ethnic sub-Saharan Africans, specifically the Yoruba and the San. That does not include much, if any, of the NBA, NFL or MLB.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

That is to say, homo-sapiens were the brains and Neanderthals were the brawn.

The question on everyone’s mind has always been whether the physically stronger Neanderthals, who possessed the gene for language and may have played the flute, were a separate species or could have interbred with modern humans. - FTA

Looks can be deceiving. Though brain size ratios are a decent way of measuring intelligence, it's not the end all.

[jmcslob]

Good read....actually starts to explain a lot........

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by HossHuge

Point taken.

But, what I meant to say was that people have done atrocious acts with information like this in the past.

evolution at work.

[TheMailMan78]

Ron Pearlman......nuff' said.





They didnt even use makeup on him in "Quest for Fire".

[Nosada]

I'll see your Perlman and raise you a

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by HossHuge

Point taken.

But, what I meant to say was that people have done atrocious acts with information like this in the past.

We can measure intelligence no more than we can measure the soul, assuming we possess either. As you yourself point out, data is often manipulated; however, there is a problem with all such "data": the I.Q., to name one commonly used method of evaluation, records nothing more than your performance in I.Q. tests.

Science has proven that "intelligence", insofar as we have defined it to date, shows no difference across racial variances, given that, genetically speaking, there are none, or not enough to matter.

That said, the neanderthal heritage of white heavyweight boxers is conspicuous for its absence.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

We can measure intelligence no more than we can measure the soul, assuming we possess either. As you yourself point out, data is often manipulated; however, there is a problem with all such "data": the I.Q., to name one commonly used method of evaluation, records nothing more than your performance in I.Q. tests.

Science has proven that "intelligence", insofar as we have defined it to date, shows no difference across racial variances, given that, genetically speaking, there are none, or not enough to matter.

That said, the neanderthal heritage of white heavyweight boxers is conspicuous for its absence.

I agree. I was rated back in high school to have an IQ of 146. So yeah tests are useless.......or drugs did me in. Your choice.