Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Neandertal DNA confirmed in humans

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 1:33:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

So it's been now totally confirmed that Neandertals did indeed breed with humans, and that current generations are still lugging around Neandertal genes. As much as 4% of our DNA ("our" meaning Eurasians) has been contributed to by Neandertals. That's a pretty landmark conclusion.

So does this mean that Neandertals were indeed never a separate species from homo sapiens? I'm not quite sure of the implications on a taxonomical and cladistic scale. Can anyone explain?
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 1:49:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 1:33:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

So it's been now totally confirmed that Neandertals did indeed breed with humans, and that current generations are still lugging around Neandertal genes. As much as 4% of our DNA ("our" meaning Eurasians) has been contributed to by Neandertals. That's a pretty landmark conclusion.

So does this mean that Neandertals were indeed never a separate species from homo sapiens? I'm not quite sure of the implications on a taxonomical and cladistic scale. Can anyone explain?

they bred with us or we evolved from them?
signature
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 1:51:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 1:49:56 PM, badger wrote:
they bred with us or we evolved from them?

They may have evolved from us, or they evolved alongside us. I'm not really sure.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 1:53:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 1:51:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/6/2010 1:49:56 PM, badger wrote:
they bred with us or we evolved from them?

They may have evolved from us, or they evolved alongside us. I'm not really sure.

that's crazy. i always thought they were just a step in our evolution.
signature
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 1:54:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Very interesting stuff. Although I am far too ignorant to knowledgably answer your questions, I would think it very significant as I've always been told that separate species aren't supposed to be able to breed fertile offspring.

What are the odds that racialist "scientists" will now start trying to prove the intellectual superiority of neanderthals? lol.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 1:56:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 1:54:02 PM, feverish wrote:
Very interesting stuff. Although I am far too ignorant to knowledgably answer your questions, I would think it very significant as I've always been told that separate species aren't supposed to be able to breed fertile offspring.

What are the odds that racialist "scientists" will now start trying to prove the intellectual superiority of neanderthals? lol.

they fact that they died out doesn't say much for their intelligence though.
signature
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 3:36:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 1:54:02 PM, feverish wrote:
Very interesting stuff. Although I am far too ignorant to knowledgably answer your questions, I would think it very significant as I've always been told that separate species aren't supposed to be able to breed fertile offspring.

What are the odds that racialist "scientists" will now start trying to prove the intellectual superiority of neanderthals? lol.

meh they've already reconstructed the neanderthal brain in such a way that pretty much shows that they were dumber than us... plus theres the evidence of their tools, which showed severe stagnation at a pretty primitive level. they were muscular and dumber. its actually pretty ironic given that throughout much of history africans were considered intellectually inferior... turns out europeans are the ones that are part neanderthal!

as for your question volkov, no they are not the same as us. the "species as populations capable of producing viable offspring" definition is too strict in many cases... the fact that they rarely interbred, and the fact that they split at an identifiable point in the evolutionary record is enough. there were real differences between the two groups.

that is amazing though. for the longest time the orthodoxy was that they never interbred. yay new findings!
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 3:43:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 3:36:53 PM, belle wrote:
its actually pretty ironic given that throughout much of history africans were considered intellectually inferior... turns out europeans are the ones that are part neanderthal!

Yeah that was kind of the point I was trying to make, thanks :)
lastrequest691
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 9:02:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Even a 12 year old nerdy kid knows that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthels are subspecies of the Mother Species - Homo

Modern Human Beings- Homo sapiens
Neanderthels- Homo neanderthalensis
"That song was absolutely waste of talent; you sounded like a wounded animal and who told you to play the guitar by yourself." Simon Cowell
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 9:24:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 9:02:19 PM, lastrequest691 wrote:
Even a 12 year old nerdy kid knows that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthels are subspecies of the Mother Species - Homo

Modern Human Beings- Homo sapiens
Neanderthels- Homo neanderthalensis
Homo isn't a species. Homo is a genus.

However, it is actually true that they are sometimes classified as a subspecies of our "mother species," Homo Sapiens.

We are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and they are sometimes classified as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. Usually they are considered their own species, though, since they split so long ago and were a fairly reproductively separated group. [1]

[1] "Homo neanderthalensis, which became extinct 30,000 years ago, has sometimes been classified as a subspecies, 'Homo sapiens neanderthalensis', but genetic studies now suggest a divergence of the Neanderthal species from Homo sapiens about 500,000 years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
BIgMac_2
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 9:28:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
well.... i guess human women are so easy, even a caveman can do 'em ;D
Body's breaking, drive me crazy
This is not your place
No, this is not your playground it's my heart
We were stupid, we got caught
Nothing matters anymore
So what? Here we are Juggernaut
- Coheed & Cambria

NOTE: WHEN SHOOTING A MIME, DO NOT USE A SILENCER OR HIS FRIENDS WILL HEAR YOU.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 9:31:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 4:47:31 PM, Puck wrote:
Interestingly one of the genes is linked to autism.

So in other words, autistic kids have caveman genes. lol.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 9:55:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 3:44:07 PM, Koopin wrote:
Neandertal slept with HUMANS?!?!?!?!?

Yes, then Banker was born.

just kidding, just kidding.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:50:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 1:33:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
As much as 4% of our DNA ("our" meaning Eurasians) has been contributed to by Neandertals. That's a pretty landmark conclusion.
No, not really. But that's probably only because I already learned it three months ago.

So does this mean that Neandertals were indeed never a separate species from homo sapiens? I'm not quite sure of the implications on a taxonomical and cladistic scale. Can anyone explain?
At least according to what I've read (though most stuff on Wiki contradicts it) from my Ecology class, the Neanderthals were just a subspecies of Homo Sapiens. When most people talk about "Homo Sapiens", they usually are referring to Cro Magnons (http://en.wikipedia.org...), who are simply more similar looking to us. If you look at the Cro-Magnon article, the name of Cro Magnons are Homo Sapiens Sapiens - it's doubled. The Neanderthals probably have Homo Sapiens Somethingelse, but I can't say, because Wiki categorizes them as a different species.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 11:24:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 1:33:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

So it's been now totally confirmed that Neandertals did indeed breed with humans, and that current generations are still lugging around Neandertal genes. As much as 4% of our DNA ("our" meaning Eurasians) has been contributed to by Neandertals. That's a pretty landmark conclusion.

So does this mean that Neandertals were indeed never a separate species from homo sapiens? I'm not quite sure of the implications on a taxonomical and cladistic scale. Can anyone explain?

Freakin SWEET!

heh! I'm a Neanderthal!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
DontBeRacist
Posts: 584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 1:17:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 1:33:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

So it's been now totally confirmed that Neandertals did indeed breed with humans, and that current generations are still lugging around Neandertal genes. As much as 4% of our DNA ("our" meaning Eurasians) has been contributed to by Neandertals. That's a pretty landmark conclusion.

So does this mean that Neandertals were indeed never a separate species from homo sapiens? I'm not quite sure of the implications on a taxonomical and cladistic scale. Can anyone explain?

Someone didn't evolve correctly. <3
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2010 1:22:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 1:17:30 AM, DontBeRacist wrote:
Someone didn't evolve correctly. <3

I use the proper German spelling. They came from the Neandertal Valley, after all. http://en.wikipedia.org...

My understanding of the dividing line between species was the inability for two different groups to reproduce. If Neandertals did indeed breed with us, and at least with a good portion of Eurasian ancestors, would it not mean that they're what some have thought all along, and simply a sub-species of Homo sapiens? Or, like belle said, is there just not enough of a distinction or definition of the difference between species to really pin it down? It's also why I asked for cladistic point of views, since I know the taxonomical classification can be a little strange.

@Rezz, your ecology class is going off on a weird tangent. Most scholars believe the Neandertals were a separate species, rather than a sub-set of Homo sapiens. However, it's still a very disputed point. I'm surprised your class didn't note that.