Meet one of your distant ancestors:

[PLC1]

Unless you're of African extraction, one of your distant ancestors may have looked something like this:

Anthropologists have debated for some time whether Neanderthals and modern humans might have interbred. Now, there is compelling evidence that they did.

Study: Neanderthal DNA Lives On in Modern Humans

The genetic information turned up some intriguing findings, indicating, for instance, that at some point after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, they mingled and mated with Neanderthals, possibly in the Middle East or North Africa as much as 80,000 years ago.

 

[Pandora]

Interesting. When Mitochondrial DNA was first discovered it was tested against various old "cave man" skeletons and they said the Mitochondrial DNA showed no relation to us, they tested apes too and Mitochondrial DNA showed no relation to us.

Paula Zhan did the interview with the scientist who worked on the study, she asked him what will they teach in school now that they are sure we did not evolve from apes or the cave men we once thought we did. He said we would keep on teaching it until we knew where we came from.

So I read your link. It is not suggesting we evolved from them only that some humans might have had sex with some of them and perhaps possibly had offspring.

but if evolution is true shouldn't you believe we evolved from them instead of had sex with them?

If you cross a male donkey and a female horse you get a mule and the mule is always sterile and always female. but its not big news that a donkey and a horse had sex... heck in the state of Washington its not even news when a man and a horse has sex, so .........I wonder if it should be news that a human and cave man had sex

 

[PLC1]

So I read your link. It is not suggesting we evolved from them only that some humans might have had sex with some of them and perhaps possibly had offspring.

Not possibly had offspring, but did have offspring, who passed the Neanderthal DNA on to their children. Having sex does not pass on DNA unless there are fertile offspring.

but if evolution is true shouldn't you believe we evolved from them instead of had sex with them?

We evolved from Australopithecus, not from neanderthals. The question is whether Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalenses may have been close enough to have mated and had fertile offspring. Now, it appears that we did.

If you cross a male donkey and a female horse you get a mule and the mule is always sterile and always female. but its not big news that a donkey and a horse had sex... heck in the state of Washington its not even news when a man and a horse has sex, so .........I wonder if it should be news that a human and cave man had sex

It is not news that they had sex It is news that they interbred.

In your mule example, the infertile offspring can't pass the DNA on to future generations. That Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did shows that they were more closely related than horses and donkeys.

 

[Pandora]

Not possibly had offspring, but did have offspring, who passed the Neanderthal DNA on to their children. Having sex does not pass on DNA unless there are fertile offspring.



We evolved from Australopithecus, not from neanderthals. The question is whether Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalenses may have been close enough to have mated and had fertile offspring. Now, it appears that we did.





It is not news that they had sex It is news that they interbred.

In your mule example, the infertile offspring can't pass the DNA on to future generations. That Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did shows that they were more closely related than horses and donkeys.

the story said its found in some people outside of africa but not in others., but I didnt see a percent. Do you have any information on how many humans had babies with neanderthals because Im thinking Paul Begala might be one of them

Or better yet

 

[palerider]

Having sex does not pass on DNA unless there are fertile offspring.

Of course it does. The offspring don't pass along DNA unless they are fertile.

We evolved from Australopithecus, not from neanderthals.

You say that as if it were fact. Mind if I see the hard evidence?

 

[Gipper]

the story said its found in some people outside of africa but not in others., but I didnt see a percent. Do you have any information on how many humans had babies with neanderthals because Im thinking Paul Begala might be one of them

Or better yet

Funny.

I have long thought liberals are really Neanderthals who somehow managed to slip through the cracks...how sad

 

[Pandora]

Funny.

I have long thought liberals are really Neanderthals who somehow managed to slip through the cracks...how sad

Lets say what the link says is true and some of us carry this DNA

how many? and Who? What kind of people are they?

Would they be the red neck hunter type? Savage Natives?

If some of us really had it in us and others did not, it would be the Alan Alda's of the world who did not have that DNA in them, they are far too girly.

If this DNA really does exist in some people then we should track those people and see what is different about them than other people.

 

[PLC1]

Lets say what the link says is true and some of us carry this DNA

how many? and Who? What kind of people are they?

Would they be the red neck hunter type? Savage Natives?

If some of us really had it in us and others did not, it would be the Alan Alda's of the world who did not have that DNA in them, they are far too girly.

If this DNA really does exist in some people then we should track those people and see what is different about them than other people.

Interestingly, it is anyone whose ancestors left Africa and migrated to Europe some 80,000 years ago, which includes anyone we think of today as "Caucasian." The telltale DNA is not found in the people whose ancestors stayed behind in Africa, the ones we today think of as Africans.

What is interesting about this find is that it sheds some light on the question of just how different Neanderthals and Moderns were. It seems that they weren't really so much different at all.

Expecting to see neanderthal traits in humans today as a result of Neanderthal DNA is a good starting point for jokes, nothing more.

Someone in another forum where I posted this same thing said that maybe Neanderthals went extinct because they couldn't jump.

Very funny, when you stop to think about it.

 

[Pandora]

Interestingly, it is anyone whose ancestors left Africa and migrated to Europe some 80,000 years ago, which includes anyone we think of today as "Caucasian." The telltale DNA is not found in the people whose ancestors stayed behind in Africa, the ones we today think of as Africans.

What is interesting about this find is that it sheds some light on the question of just how different Neanderthals and Moderns were. It seems that they weren't really so much different at all.

Expecting to see neanderthal traits in humans today as a result of Neanderthal DNA is a good starting point for jokes, nothing more.

Someone in another forum where I posted this same thing said that maybe Neanderthals went extinct because they couldn't jump.

Very funny, when you stop to think about it.

They compared neanderthal DNA with 5 living people and that is proof that every person alive is has neanderthal DNA ? Wow science is getting sloppy

 

[orogenicman]

They compared neanderthal DNA with 5 living people and that is proof that every person alive is has neanderthal DNA ? Wow science is getting sloppy

Obviously, you didn't carefully read the article. Only three of the five showed definite Neanderthal DNA mixed in with their own. And that was part of the point of the article.

 

[Pandora]

Obviously, you didn't carefully read the article. Only three of the five showed definite Neanderthal DNA mixed in with their own. And that was part of the point of the article.

I did read that but I didn't type carefully enough

my point was that only 5 being tested doesn't seem like very good research


My first post when I said some showed it I was arguing that some showed it but PLC1 I think said they all did so my new point was 5 isnt enough

I don't think I ever welcomed you to the HOP, WELCOME

 

[PLC1]

I did read that but I didn't type carefully enough

my point was that only 5 being tested doesn't seem like very good research


My first post when I said some showed it I was arguing that some showed it but PLC1 I think said they all did so my new point was 5 isnt enough

I don't think I ever welcomed you to the HOP, WELCOME

You have a point there. Just because five individuals had Neanderthal DNA in their genome doesn't prove that every individual from the same parts of the world necessarily do. It is likely, given the lack of diversity in human DNA, that we do, but it is possible that some do not.

What it does prove beyond any doubt is that Neanderthals and modern humans at one time mated and produced fertile offspring. That alone settles some interesting debates about our relationship with Neanderthals. They must not have been terribly different from our own ancestors.

 

[orogenicman]

I did read that but I didn't type carefully enough

my point was that only 5 being tested doesn't seem like very good research


My first post when I said some showed it I was arguing that some showed it but PLC1 I think said they all did so my new point was 5 isnt enough

I don't think I ever welcomed you to the HOP, WELCOME

I agree that 1,000 points on a graph are better than 5. That said, those five were carefully vetted to be representative of people who live in their respective regions. And it's likely just a preliminary assessment, as this field is relatively young. It will get better. I have no doubt about that.

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[orogenicman]

You have a point there. Just because five individuals had Neanderthal DNA in their genome doesn't prove that every individual from the same parts of the world necessarily do. It is likely, given the lack of diversity in human DNA, that we do, but it is possible that some do not.

What it does prove beyond any doubt is that Neanderthals and modern humans at one time mated and produced fertile offspring. That alone settles some interesting debates about our relationship with Neanderthals. They must not have been terribly different from our own ancestors.

I as just reading an article today about archaeological evidence of an isolated neandethal population in southern Italy that produced advanced lithic technology independently from any infleunce by modern humans. The author said it was his professional opinion that Neanderthals were a subspecies of humans, not a separate species. The genetic evidence strengthens his case, I should think.

 

[Pidgey]

OR... the tiny sequence fragments have no significance at all. "Once upon a time... " ...in our recent history, Northern latitudes were experiencing severe cloud cover due to (much) warmer oceans than now. That's what deposited all the ice that made the (drum roll) Ice Age. You see, it's not really cold that's required so much as persistent precipitation. Anyhow, people living in those regions experienced severe vitamin D3 deficiency due to the decreased sunlight at the time in those regions. The heavy brows and oddly shaped limbs are a direct result of that very deficiency. Descriptions of that weather still exist in tribal memories--it wasn't really that long ago, as it happens.