The new finding shows that “gene flow across taxonomic boundaries happens,” observes geneticist Michael F. Hammer of the University of Arizona. Hammer is among the minority of geneticists who have espoused the idea of gene flow between archaic and modern populations. His own studies of the DNA of people living today have uncovered, for example, a stretch of DNA that seems to have come from encounters between moderns and H. erectus.
Some experts suspect that the estimate for the amount of Neandertal DNA people carry today could rise with further studies—if a Neandertal from the Middle East were sequenced, for instance. In addition, says paleoanthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, the current study might be obscuring a contribution of Neandertal genes to the African gene pool, because the team specifically looked to explain genetic diversity in non-Africans compared with Africans. He and his colleagues are currently working on a way to assess that possibility.
Many researchers concur that the results disprove the strict Out of Africa replacement model of modern human origins. In a prepared statement Out of Africa theorist Christopher B. Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London said “although I have never ruled out the possibility of interbreeding, I have considered this to have been small and insignificant in the bigger picture of our evolution— for example, the results of isolated interbreeding events could easily have been lost in the intervening millennia. Now, the Neanderthal genome strongly suggests those genes were not lost, and that many of us outside of Africa have some Neanderthal inheritance.” But Stringer maintains that the origin of our species is mostly an Out of Africa story.
Population geneticist Laurent Excoffier of the University of Bern in Switzerland agrees that Out of Africa is still the most plausible model of modern human origins, noting that the alleged admixture did not continue as moderns moved into Europe. “In all scenarios of speciation, there is a time during which two diverging species remain interfertile,” he explains.
Other Forebears as Well?
Pääbo, for his part, says that now that his team has shown that early modern humans interbred with one archaic group, he thinks other archaic humans might have passed along genes to us through interbreeding. Whether such contributions might have been beneficial remains unknown, however, although the Neandertal DNA in non-Africans does not seem to encode anything particularly important from a functional standpoint.
In addition to illuminating how Neandertals and moderns interacted, the Neandertal genome is helping researchers to figure out which parts of the modern human genome separate us from all other creatures. “Many traits that distinguish humans from chimps are believed to have evolved more recently than the human–Neanderthal split,” observes biostatistician Katherine S. Pollard of the Gladstone Institutes at the University of California, San Francisco. “A Neanderthal genome is a very important step towards determining the genetic basis for these characteristics that define the modern human species.”
Thus far, Pääbo’s group has identified a number of modern human genome regions containing sequence variation that is not seen in Neandertals and that may have helped modern humans adapt. Some of these regions play a role in cognitive development, sperm movement and the physiology of the skin.
See what we're tweeting about
72 Comments
Add CommentSo, because there is no evidence of interbreeding in the mitochondrial DNA, the only successful interbreeding must have been Neanderthal men and modern women. This can mean either that the modern-man/Neanderthal-woman mating was sterile or that the interbreeding was only between Neanderthal men and modern women. Oh! there is another possibility: The babies stayed with their mothers, so the folks born of the modern-men/Neanderthal-women interbreeding were with the Neanderthals and died out with them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a big change from a recent article that stated that based on Neandertal DNA Homo Sapiens and Neandertal had not swapped DNA for 500k years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrobert schmidt - The article explained that previous conclusions were based on analysis mitochondrial DNA, which do not impart functional distinctions in non-mitochondrial cells, anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not just a big change from prior conceptions of human development, but a potentially revolutionary discovery. This intermixing between the species seems to have occurred over a large period of time during which the most distinguishing characteristics of modern humans, symbolic reasoning ans language, for example, seem to have developed. If it is ever established that these distinguishing characteristics were in some way produced as a result of exchanges between species, it would certainly change our fundamental understanding of them.
I knew it all along. I mean look around.... Andr� the giant? Hello recessive genes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer, that doesn't seem particularly likely to me, because the genetic exchanges between the two human branches apparently did not occur in African populations. If those Neandertal genetic contributions were functionally significant, we would expect to see functional differences between African and non-African populations, which we don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPotatoChip - I admit that I may be overstating the potential significance of this discovery, and that there is no existing evidence of Neanderthal genetic influence in African populations. However, as the article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Some experts suspect that the estimate for the amount of Neandertal DNA people carry today could rise with further studies—if a Neandertal from the Middle East were sequenced, for instance. In addition, says paleoanthropoloist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, the current study might be obscuring a contribution of Neandertal genes to the African gene pool, because the team specifically looked to explain genetic diversity in non-Africans compared with Africans. He and his colleagues are currently working on a way to assess that possibility."
I think it's too soon to tell what the genetic record may eventually reveal. Moreover, this study establishes not only genetic exchanges between species, but infers extensive social and very close personal interactions between species, perhaps even including emotional bonding. Perhaps even extensive development of inherent social abilities required these challenging conditions. In particular, evidence of artistic expression and communication, I believe, first appeared in Southern Europe and Northern Africa within or closely following this period of potential social interactions.
But, I admit I'm just guessing...
Fascinating. Makes me think Jean Auel's fiction books may reflect a little more truth than I realized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJT,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA phrase germane to your speculations -- "hybrid vigor".
a phrase germane to jtdwyer's speculations: "hybrid vigor"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTreeFrog - Interesting, but again, the development of human characteristics may have been a result of software development more than hardware. While definitive evidence of cultural, social and personal developments resulting from inter-species contact may be hard to come by, establishing that some sexual interactions occurred places a lower constraint on the level of interpersonal relations that occurred, something that was previously unknown. Just as interactions between individuals from disparate cultures is challenging today, inter-species interactions would have likely been even more challenging.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the Neanderthal genes transferred to modern humans may not have produced any significant physiological characteristics, developing personal relations may have required significantly enhanced learned abilities. I'm just guessing, but these developments could explain why evidence of symbolic artistic expression might occur following this contact and not before, even though there seems to be little to distinguish human physiology before and after that expression.
These people are looking for too simpler an answer and they are talking and guessing in circles that are non-related. What humans did these scientists compare Neanderthal DNA with? Some scientists, not these scientists reporting now, only found brief Neanderthal DNA in a handful of Auzies in the Outback and an even smaller number in south central Africa. These modern humans that they found trace amounts of Neanderthal DNA in actually, somewhat resembled Neanderthals. They could find no Neanderthal DNA in humans who lived North of the Equator around northern Europe at the time Neanderthals ruled Europe. They could only conclude that the Northern Hemisphere humans was non compatible with the Northern Hemisphere Neanderthals. So again, the question, "What humans did they find Neanderthal DNA in? Is it evolved Neanderthals that they found Neanderthal DNA in? because modern human did not come on the scene until millions of years after the out of Africa scene and they cannot find Neanderthal DNA in these "so called" modern humans in the Northern Hemisphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not a huge surprise to me they've finally discovered some suspect DNA. (although all the studies they've done before have been to the contrary).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously we're closely related species so hybrids would/could be possible.
The bigger surprise than offspring being viable, is that social boundaries at the time allowed for this cross-breeding.
Perhaps the hybrid young that introduced the genes into our society were the process of raids and raping attacked tribeswomen. Our species history is full of that from one tribe to another within our species. Perhaps it is how DNA was spread between our two species.
David N'Gog - I agree that the interbreeding could have all been the result of rape and plunder: this is the lower bounds of social interaction that I referred to previously. There may have at least been a "Thank you, M'am" offered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEFGussow, in the first comment, also brings up a good point that, especially in the case of rape, the child would remain with the mother. In that case the surviving humans carrying Neanderthal genes would have represented only the product of Neanderthal rape of human women, unless Neanderthal offspring were allowed to join human groups after maturity, which seems unlikely.
It seems to me most likely that there was some more complex interactions between the groups producing offspring, requiring the development of at least limited communications between the species. Perhaps some evidence of the nature of these interactions can eventually be found.
It would be interesting to see if these findings can be duplicated by other researchers, particularly since they are inconsistent with prior research while at the same time supporting certain stereotypical beliefs. It is also remarkable to see that Papuans have the same percentage of Neanderthal DNA as other Eurasians (e.g., Europeans) that have lived in much closer proximity. In addition, why is there no evidence of reverse mixing, Homo Sapiens DNA in the Neanderthal genome? In addition, given these new results, why is there minimal genetic distance between the races? These results seem to be very suspicious ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSinombre - As the article explains, there are no prior results of non-mitochondrial DNA comparisons: there is no inconsistency. The prior studies only determined that there was no surviving evidence of interbreeding in the relatively short sequence of mitochondrial DNA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe evidence of Neanderthal DNA sequences in Papuans' DNA does seem remarkable, just as prior DNA studies have shown greater diversity among East African populations than between European and Asian populations seem curious.
The sample population of DNA sequenced Neanderthals is incredibly small: since there are no surviving Neanderthals its unlikely that any evidence of Neanderthal incorporation of human DNA will ever be found.
It is reasonable to question new results, but it is the beholder who is suspicious of the evidence.
@jtdwyer, yes I understand that, but that was in '97, the article I read was within the past year or so and it made no mention of mitochondrial DNA I am guessing it was a different study. If so I am wonder what differed between the two studies. I'll try and find the original article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately this gives fuel to many white supremacists groups that have claimed that the mix between homo sapiens and neandertals is what made Europeans "superior" to Africans. I hope we can determine soon to what extent the neandertal dna contributed to the Asian / European phenotype.
robert schmidt - You could be correct, but the recent article could have been referring to the results of the earlier MDNA study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that these results could be misconstrued to support many unfortunate views. As stated, this study presumed there were no Neanderthal genes in African DNA and a U. Wisconsin study is underway to evaluate that assumption. While there has been some indication that Neanderthals had red hair, there seems to be few of the generalized Scandinavian physical characteristics, for example, of lean features and blond hair that would have likely been produced by inheritance of Neanderthal characteristics.
Again, since there seems to be no significant functional distinction in the characteristics imparted by the Neanderthal genes, I suspect the more critical developments resulted from the now at least minimally established social interactions between the species. Those developments could have been later learned by any modern human, since no significant physical trait modifications were apparently imparted.
The St Cesaire Neanderthal of northern France c 34,000 BC had a modern brow, jawbone and teeth. Where did they come from? The Skuhl-Quafzeh fossils some 50,000 years earlier in Israel showed much earlier admixture of a similar high-teir Neanderthal type. Where did it come from? And what proof do we have that the pre-Neanderthals did not contribute to the Eurasian gene pools c 60,000-30,000 BC? DNA studies of Neanderthals are working without proper criteria for sample, since nobody has yet defined what a sample Neanderthal was, for the simple reason that the recovered bones from 500 Neanderthals show immense diversity, especially in expression of admixed racial traits and hints of early modern traits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find this all extremely fascinating and look forward to the years ahead when we can isolate where on the DNA chain the influence of this inter-breeding affected the development of modern man. As a psychologist, I am particularly interested in the development of the bicameral brain and, whether we argue about the knowledge of consciousness or not is not significant (the main Julian Jaynes opposition), how these brains may be different is of tremendous interest. If I were a doctoral student today, this is where I would look to find answers about how this DNA may have developed a mind that is significantly different than the majority, depending on the manifestation of the dominate gene factors. I anticipate (and have hypothesized for years in my own study) that we will find this gene influence creates minds that are more primitive, if you will, with dominance of global thinking (the pre-bicameral mind) that makes some individuals "obstinate," ADD, schizophrenic and also extremely creative. It is my suspicion that some people have this "primitive" gene input and are therefore inherently different than the dominant culture. Furthermore, they are not necessarily "mentally ill" as they simply have different cognitive maps. If we could discover the groundwork for this, it might be possible, in my opinion, to have a whole new human resource, instead of one that we subdue with drugs and isolation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJT, you said, "Again, since there seems to be no significant functional distinction in the characteristics imparted by the Neanderthal genes..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd that is exactly what the article says. However, I find that comment--in both places--to show scientific hubris. The only absolute fact that we now have, is that we now have proof of some level of genetic intermingling of some neanderthals, and some modern humans. But the science here has not ruled out either the depth nor breadth of intermingling. And scientific understanding of specific genetic patterns in areas we have not heretofore done research on, is not limited, it is nonexistent.
We do know that many genes are not active on their own, that they need other genes to either exist, or be switched on, in order for the first set to do whatever it is they do. Just because the scientists who JUST found these few neanderthal genes, don't know what the genes do, does not mean they do nothing!
Not exactly flattering to Europeans (though of little relevance) but it was strongly suspected anyway if only due to the superficial physiological similarity between (many) Europeans and Neanderthals (say northern Spaniards,Italians, French and Germans to name a few). It's also mildly consistent with the fact that their ancestors were essentially savages before becoming "civilized" (even Italians/Romans really only absorbed Etruscan and Greek elements(the latter in turn received from Minoan i.e. Egyptian, etc.)).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the fact that Europeans (before the 20th century) were the most ethically diverse group (having genes from African and Asian pools but not vice versa) is one contributing factor to their (now past) period of hegemony.
The two uneplained segments came from ET. That's why we keep reaching for the stars, even we're broke as a fallen Christmas ornament. We just wanna go HOME!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShulamit - You’re correct: I was simply adopting the article’s conclusion that there were no significant functional distinctions imparted by the Neanderthal genes, to argue that even without them, Human-Neanderthal interactions could have produced the apparent explosive developments of symbolic expression that eventually led to written languages and persistent transmission of generational knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that there does not appear to be any rigorous determination of what influence those genes may have. It’s more correct to simply state that no functional distinctions have so far been attributed to these genes.
My fantasy has always been that there were violent confrontations between Neandertals and Humans, and that the Neandertals usually won, because they were so much bigger and stronger. In any case, a typical scenario for conflicts between hunter-gathers would be that the male combatants would be killed and females taken as trophies. These human "trophies" would have been our ancestors. If, by some fluke, humans did triumph in any conflicts with Neandertals, there is little likelihood that female Neandertals would have been taken as "trophies" because they would have been so much bigger and stronger than any male partner. Moreover, they would have eaten a lot more (another reason for Neandertal men prefering human females - cheaper to keep!). My guess is that Neandertals wiped themselves out over the years by constantly inbreeding with human females, resulting in modern europeans. Looking for a "remnant" of our Neandertal ancestry? I would bet that white skin (the original humans were Africans, i.e., darked complected) is such. Hairy Neandertals would have had light skin for the same reason that your dog/cat has white skin: Their fur covers and prevents exposure to the sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have some chimp DNA and some plant DNA as humans. This article says nothing where evolution is concerned. It does present more evidence for a common creator of all life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had always wondered where Democrats came from!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpiff
Arnold Schwarzenegger too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere we may have the first case of "women who like bad boys." Or was it rape?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGotta admit that I'm pretty ignorant about genes and all, but could these interactions have bred a few genetic problems out of one or both species? I mean like arthritis. Or could, like say, Neandertal have had a problem with a disease like this and most of it was bred out but is the reason that we have it to a lesser extent, maybe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome modern humans have a Occipital bun as did most neanderthals, in the light of recent finding showing that the genome of most populations of modern humans contains about 2-4% contribution from neanderthals is it likely that Modern people with Occipital bun have a higher proportion of neanderthal genes than people without this anatomical feature?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome modern humans have a Occipital bun as did most neanderthals, in the light of recent finding showing that the genome of most populations of modern humans contains about 2-4% contribution from neanderthals is it likely that Modern people with Occipital bun have a higher proportion of neanderthal genes than people without this anatomical feature?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissaying there appears to be no adaptive advantage in our neanderthal genes is to impune the conservation of positive genetic heritage according to natural selection. a glaring error here. we are a little bit 'anderthal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVIVRE LA DIFFERENCE! CHAQUE A SON GOUT.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbuddhacosmos - A valid point, but as long as a gene sequence is survival neutral it can persist. Since, as I understand, much of the human genome appears to be currently non-productive of any distinguishing features there is no cause for those sequences to be excluded from the population. The may have offered some benefit in some past expression...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexcellent article and comments...just a couple of my own...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEFGussow...my thoughts exactly...well put...
the nature(or was it science) article consists of a series of videos with the author explaining the difficulties in extracting such ancient dna.
it really spells out the lengths they had to goto to get something that was 10 to 30 percent clean...
using monkey dna/human dna and virus/bacteria dna to amplify/negate what little they had...i think they did a really good job...
EFGussow - As I understand, mitochondrial DNA sequences are much, much shorter than non-mitochondrial DNA. As a result, I expect that the probability of mutation in a strand of mitochondrial DNA is much less than a strand of non-mitochondrial DNA (an energetic particle is more likely to damage a non-mitochondrial DNA strand, for example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile only maternal mDNA can be inherited, once any Neanderthal mDNA entered the human gene pool, even human mothers could pass along Neanderthal mDNA, depending on the mating success and survivability of human females carrying Neanderthal mDNA.
While babies may have stayed with their mothers, there is no evidence that Neanderthal populations were suddenly exterminated. As hybrid babies matured, their characteristics could have given them equal likelihood for successful socialization and mating with both humans and Neanderthals.
It seems most likely that non-mitochondrial Neanderthal genes survive in modern humans more as a matter of probability more than any other reason.
Mayby they were just better hung.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe they were just better hung
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe modern man evolved a little over 5ooo years ago. The evolution of the living forms has four distinct transitions. The modern man is the last one. The evolution took place in two processes. The first process was natural evolution on Earth. The second process was through the visitors from space. For details write to mbasudeba@gmail.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do we know that the particular genes came FROM Neanderthal and were not just genes SHARED by Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens, inherited by both species from a common ancestor?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do we know that the genes came FROM Neanderthal, rather than being SHARED by both Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens and inherited from a common ancestor?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWilliam Jennings - I suspect that the genes shared by Neanderthals and non-African modern humans are not found in Africans. While not definitive proof of origin, if non-African and African modern humans had common predecessors, it should be concluded that the Neanderthal genes were not inherited from a common predecessor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe homo sapiens gave some of THEIR Dna to Neandertals..... just because there is evidence of transmission does not clearly show from whom the shared DNA came and to whom it was transmitted. But it certainly does prove that Genesis chapter 6 is true. It's no surprise that interspecies sex happened to real Bible students. Genesis describes "the sons of the true God" (angels) materializing to make whoopee with "the daughters of the sons of men". Naturally, when the Flood came, those angels dematerialized and went back to their natural home, heaven, but their offspring died. Scientists call those offspring "Neandertals".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnottakingiteasy - You dispute yourself, since the presence of Neanderthal genes in modern humans indicates ('proves' to you) that some offspring survived.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnottakingiteasy, there’s one part of your post that is a bit confusing. It’s not that what you wrote consists of a complete misunderstanding of a scientific study, or that it relies on biblical text, or that it makes reference to some sort of god, angels, a mythical flood or something you call heaven. No, it’s that embedded within all of that, you used the word, "Naturally." Now that really threw me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOMG! There's a little Neanderthal in me. Wow, that's like Ash in Army of Darkness!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer -the proliferation of ideas on the prehistory involved in this truly profound discovery -is to the benefit of the assimilation and acceptance of this expected but astonishing truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi want to say that with the new findings in the accilary effects of otherwise dormant genome in shaping the metabolism -it is no wonder that breedng is more responsible for adaptive evolution than is mutstion. and i think we can all now look around us and see the truth in this.
the joy of life determines the outcome.
buddhacosmos, I honestly don’t know what you mean. First, I'm not familiar with the word 'accilary '. Also, what is a dormant genome? So 'breedng' is more responsible for adaptive evolution than 'mutstion'? Okay, I was able to figure out what words you meant to type, although it’s still not clear what your point is. Breeding doesn’t result in the formation of novel genes; mutation does. How, exactly, do you think those genes got into the Neandertal genome?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorking on the hypothesis that the stories contained in, at least, the book of Genesis in the Bible are ancient oral traditions recorded in writing (and possibly true in part, albeit not literally true) and knowing that these stories originate in the Middle East (where the hypothesised meeting of Neanderthals and 'Moderns' took place) the then story of how when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown might give a possible alternate explanation to the hypothesised rape of the 'Modern' women. If the Neanderthals were perceived by the 'Moderns' as more advanced ( sons of God ) it might explain why these women would have been willing to (or even wish to) 'breed' with them. Likewise, if the Neanderthals were more advanced, it might explain why 'Modern' men never got a 'look in' with Neanderthal women.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbuddhacosmos - I apologize for inappropriate personal aspersions. Pardon my unruly critical thought processes, but in my experience only ideas that can survive criticism and refinement are useful. Nothing personal in that. Please feel free to impersonally criticize my speculative ideas - I do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispostatoechip and jdwyer and all -i refer to an article TRIVIAL DNA in JUNE 2009 SciAm. that codons which are otherwise silent are not mute and do exert enourmous influence on enzyme synthesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisevolution is asynthesis -not just a crap shoot. the whole idea of wasps and figs being entirely attributed to mutstion reminds me of the silly 'two arrows meeting in midair" that zenists find so fascinating. two arrows billions upon billions of times. no.
i add that DARWIN was very thourough, and in employing the word mutattion he must have had intention. Darwin had no knowledge of the source of variation -genetics. mutation refers to an unknown principle that has been habitually attributed to codon damage and duplication. the article TRIVIAL DNA in JUNE '09 SciAm is fundamental to our understanding of phylogeny.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismutation as a synthesis fits more perfectly with Darwin. let's not lose track of Darwin. Never take the teachings of the Great Minds for granted. neither their intentions.
buddhacosmos, you are misrepresenting the modern understanding of the evolutionary process. This is very clear when you say things like, "evolution is . . . not just a crap shoot" and "the whole idea of wasps and figs being entirely attributed to mutstion [sic]."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are completely correct when you say those things, but what you should understand is that evolution theorists DO NOT say that those things are true. Evolutionary biologists DO NOT say that evolution is a crap shoot and they don’t say that ANYTHING is entirely attributed to mutation. This is how we know that you are confused; you are presenting what is commonly called a straw man argument.
the original discussion is whether the neanderthal genes in modern man have any phenotypic effect. my comments on silent codons and my reference to the synthetic aspect of adaptation is pointed at this. i'm not some antievolutionist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi find in these pages a great deal of insistance that evolution is a matter of random mutation and survival determined by morbididty and fecundity. which completely ignores the varieety and intracacy of life as we know it around us.
buddhacosmos, you actually are an antievolutionist. You might not realize it, but you are. Not only do you reject the core principle, but you repeatedly misrepresent it. Your analogy of "two arrows billions upon billions of times" is an example. That analogy doesn’t even come close to fairly representing the evolutionary process as articulated by evolutionary biologists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, when you refer to "the varieety [sic] and intracacy [sic] of life as we know it around us", you are employing another common error. You can’t just look around you and draw conclusions about how evolution works (or doesn’t work).
A codon (silent or otherwise) is a sequence of nucleotides. A nucleotide is a compound that forms the basic constituent of DNA and RNA. Novelty at the nucleotide level comes from mutations. If you think otherwise, please explain.
if you don't look around you first. you soon become lost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas i said about powerfull influence of silent codons -SciAm JUNE 2009 TRIVIAL DNA.
So where is the intermediate, between neanderthals and humans? How come they still haven't found the missing link?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe intermediate should be defined as physical attributes (i.e. height, brain size) and cognitive attributes (cognitive capacity, cognitive skills) as being intermediate, likelihood of reaching the level of modern humans.
I was startled when this article was pointed out to me by my step father, with the so very short time frames represented. It was a woman led team from a University in California, forgive me for not know her name ?Rebecca? discovered with her team back in the 80's, through mtDNA research, that all races could be tracked back about 290,000 years to a single source. Many magazines and periodicals featured as a title "Has Eve been found?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe core of this gos back to what happened 290,000 years ago, not what happened with the various species of humanoids having sex. Yes the question is about the 'missing link' and the spliced chromosone. Darwin was incorrect as there is no evidence, never has been, to support his theory of fish come out of the water and growing legs to become humans. Absolutely nothing consecutive.
The only plausible theory that includes and explains all the evidence, all the observations is that whch was put forward by Zacharia Sitchin. The 'Gods' (space travellors) arrived here and genetically modified the existing species to work for them. The clay tablet records discovered in the 1850's and buried for 4000 years, written in a script we have only recently learned how to read via the Rosetta stone, also record this gene splicing event occuring 290,000 years ago.
We ignore this records at our great loss. Of course there is Neanderthal and CroMagnum and others interbreeding, along with the visiting space travellors. What man can refuse a beautiful woman, what woman can refuse a handsome man. Currently the human species think too highly of themselves.
whenever someone says life on eath originated on another planet -i always wonder how they think life got there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbuddhacosmos - Exactly! Of course, it could have gone there from yet another planet...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy there are just talk about gene and DNA. You should know it is multidiscipline research about origin of modern human and Neanderthal problem. Could you provide some more info from other sujects? like archaeology, anthropology, linguistics. I thhink the finnally answer come from hybrid of different disciplines. of course, I know it is difficult.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes this push the probable invention date of beer back about 20,000 years?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think that's what the 500k years meant. THAT's when modern humans and Neandertal diverged...They left Africa, went into Europe and Asia. Without the Neandertal genome they had no scientific evidence that there was ANY interbreeding after that 500k year date.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this means that interbreeding happened so very long ago between both sexes of Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal indescriminately and over the thousands of years of this happening both the Neanderthal Y-DNA and MtDNA lines died out with only evidence of Cro-Magnon lines currently detected. This happens all the time with recent lines as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrinkaus and Moldovan argue (2003) that the 40,500 years old find at Oase 1 in Pestera cu Oase in western Rumania, the site containing the oldest early homo sapiens sapiens remains in Europe, 'exhibits morphological traits combining a variety of archaic Homo and possibly Neanderthal features'. This mixture of modern human and Neandertal traits are similar to the 31,000 years old find at Mladeč, the Aurignacian site in the eastern Check Republic, and the 25,000 years old fossil of a child in Abrigo do Lagar Velho, the early Upper Paleolithic burial site in northern Portugal. These finds strengthen the Paabo's conclusions. Having in mind that other studies show the retreat of Neanderthals towards the south from the advancing cold of the ice age, maybe it would be interesting to compare DNA analysis of what is earlier being called the 'Dinaric race' of the western Balkans with DNA of Vindia find.
@Fahad "So where is the intermediate, between neanderthals and humans? How come they still haven't found the missing link?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey walk amongst us every day, the white skinned people. The flaming red hair of the Irish. The sturdy hairy looking German woman with the pronounced occipital bun, the Italian men that you mistake for wearing a sweater at the beach.. uh oh that's not a sweater that's body hair.
These features keep cropping up in Europe the home range of the Neanderthal hinting at the evidence we are just beginning to prove. That white skin, green and blue eyes, blonde hair, hairy bodies, stocky builds, pronounced occipital bun on the skull are all neanderthal traits that are interbred into European modern humans.
We need to start from a blank slate with this and not be pulled in by the mistaken "big dumb ape" theory of neanderthal, or that "they lost at evolution."
With a bigger brain, bigger stronger cold adapted bodies, ability to create fire and speak. They lived in family groups, buried their dead. They hunted and killed animals in their prime, not the stragglers and weak back of the pack, animals. They were more advanced than we in numerous ways and would not have simply lost at evolution.
One other thing, I would like to see as a previous poster, more testing of all the neanderthal bones to confirm the similarity amongst them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe other test I would like scientists to do is choose two groups a random sample, and a group chosen specifically with likely neanderthal features to see if that theory is true, the red heads, the hairy people, the heavy brow sturdy body type, to see if it is more common in people with these traits.
I think those of us who don't subscribe to the spaceman/sons of god theories need to look carefully at what the researchers are actually saying. They state that the same amount of Neandertal DNA was found in all the non-African samples, regardless of whether from Papua New Guinea or France. Prevalence of heavily-built fair-skinned, ginger individuals with lots of body hair in Europe can only be attributed to Neandertal DNA if there is shown to be a particular Neandertal sequence which is strongly present in Europeans and not elsewhere. This is not indicated by the research. There is the same amount of Neandertal DNA in dark-skinned Papuans and gracile, delicate-featured Chinese as there is in Europeans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne reason the whole subject of "race" is so vexed is that noticeable regional differences in skin and facial features are visible, despite the fact that underlying anatomy and physiology barely differ. As all non-African humans have common ancestors only a few tens of thousands of years ago, it must be true that facial features and colouring are capable of rapid change under evolutionary pressure.
The article makes it clear that a single incidence of interbreeding (a "one night stand") could result in the presence of Neandertal DNA as seen. Genetic research indicates that all non-African humans are decended from a very small, tribe/extended family-sized group which made the crossing into the Near East before expanding and spreading out. Thus any one individual in this group could contribute DNA to all the subsequent generations. We should be aware that, whatever the result of studies seeking Neandertal DNA in sub-Saharan Africans, that population has a huge genetic diversity compared to the restricted genetic origins of non-Africans.
Darwin, in studying the Galapagos finches, saw how a small population, colonising new territory with a wide range of available ecological niches, rapidly diversified and gave rise to a huge range of apparently dissimilar forms which shared a common ancestor and were indeed closely related. The differences between modern human populations are like the differences between Darwin's finches; rapid, essentially superficial, adaptations to differing requirements. In our case, however, an extraordinarily small number of generations separates us from our common ancestors, and the differences are very minor.
A further thought. Absence of Neandertal mitocondrial DNA proves nothing. Every time a woman has only sons, her own mDNA dies out; it will only be preserved if for instance she has a sister or maternal cousin who has daughters. Bearing in mind that the study shows Neandertal interbreeding occurred in the middle east before the human population had increased and spread out, ie while the group was still quite small, the chances of Neandertal mDNA from a single interbreeding event, or small number thereof, dying out in subsequent generations is quite high.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason mDNA tracing is so useful in tracking human migration is, precisely, the tendency of mDNA lines to decrease in number in any restricted population, and be more likely to be preserved only when populations are expanding rapidly.
Since we are generally dealing with fossilized bone remains, we can only speculate on the actual bodily makeup of a true Neanderthal. Could we take an ape or gorilla skeleton and using that evidence exclusively to say with certainty what the genital construction was? Could the Neanderthal have had a more Gorilla-like construction and be physically incapable of producing as many offspring? All the depictions of Neanderthals are going to be highly biased toward speculation based on modern human body construction. Had they survived into the modern era they might have been employed as a worker sub class. Literally being controlled like a farm animal. That's the hole in the Planet of the Apes story, they do not have the means to populate as we do. Or organized armies, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtraterrestrial life finding its way to the planet doesn't require angels or little green men. There are extraterrestrial chunks of ice the size of cars falling to earth at the poles all the time. One shouldn't totally ignore the possibility, none of which has any connection to the subject matter at hand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenetic science will reveal much about humans and expect it to cause a lot of rewriting of the history books as well.
Fahad "So where is the intermediate, between neanderthals and humans? How come they still haven't found the missing link?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no evolutionary "between" intermediate. The two share common ancestry that diverged.