Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 168 of 168
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: We're all 4% Neanderthal?

  1. #101  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    what happened to the neanderthal population when we (sapiens sapiens) had our evolutionary bottleneck circa 70,000ybp?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Is there evidence of modern human from anywhere else that long ago?


    Mixing a small amount of Bear DNA into a dog wouldn't mean the dog didn't descend mostly from a lineage unrelated to bears.


    Then are you refuting the statistical analysis that suggests a 4% drift would be highly improbable? Perhaps you have your own means of determining how much population drift is probable?

    Would you like to share this new technology of yours?


    4% MORE neanderthal DNA. Not 4% total. A difference of 4% in two lineages of the same species requires one of two things:

    1) - A very long time. (Which we know there wasn't.)

    or

    2) - Interbreeding after the species already existed.

    There is a highly ridiculous option 3

    3) - Every Neanderthal/Donosovan/...etc admixture always comes out homo-sapien, and some just have different mixtures. (So even with different mixtures, the product always comes out homo sapien?)

    Do understand why that third option is ridiculous? With all the chaos involved in DNA selection, what are the odds that two different Neanderthal/Donosovan/etc hybrids would share enough common traits to be recognized as the same species after it's over? (Always picking the same traits from each contributor...?)


    You realize that Neanderthals were still alive as a distinct and recognizable species as late as 33,000 years ago, right?

    Cromagnons have been found and dated back to 35,000 years ago.

    So at a minimum, the two species coexisted for 2,000 years.
    No, there is no evidence or proof of anatomically modern humans anywhere 150,000 kya.

    I am not disputing any genetic drift models here. What I am disputing is the claim that anatomically modern humans bred to multiple hominids 100,000-150,000 years ago. That is impossible. Anatomically modern humans (We) are the product of those crosses, not the creators of them.

    CroMagnon's dna/genes will be the product of multiple hominid crosses as well. They will not be void of that reality.

    Neandertals/denisovans/etc., were not different species. Same species, different "populations" (races if you will).

    Modern human DNA/genes vary far more than 4%. That does not make them two different species, that just means some hominid ancestors that contributed to their evolution/creation differed in their locations and populations from one and another.

    Because there is absolutely no evidence of anatomically modern humans 150,000 kya, and because modern humans have massive amounts of multiple hominid genes/dna in them (common and uncommon), shows that we are the product of multiple ancestor hominids rather than the product of one hominid line.

    About 25% of the genes in humans and chimps are identical/shared. If we use the 6 million split time theory applied there, then right off the bat, neandertals/denisovans/other hominids and modern humans should have roughly about 80-85% (?) identical/shared genes. I want you to actually wrap your mind around that for a minute because that only leaves room for about 15-20% to be from other sources after it is estimated modern humans had a population split from neandertals.

    Africans have another 13% genetic contribution from other archaic hominids in addition to 80-85% already identical/shared with other hominids. All these archaic hominids, in total, account for 93-98% (roughly) of the genetic make up of africans. Now, how much does that leave for this so called imaginary african modern human living in africa some 150,000 kya to contribute? 2-7%?

    Some eurasians have another 10% added to the 80-85%, that leaves about 5-10% contribution from a different hominid beyond the ones we know about, right?

    Again, what makes modern humans what we are is multiple hominids from multiple regions... We are not the product/decendants of a made up modern human roaming in africa some 150,000 kya that the out of africa people love to fantasize about.
    Last edited by gonzales56; May 16th, 2012 at 05:11 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,562
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    No, there is no evidence or proof of anatomically modern humans anywhere 150,000 kya.
    I will ask again, what is your peer-reviewed proof of this assertion.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    No, there is no evidence or proof of anatomically modern humans anywhere 150,000 kya.
    I will ask again, what is your peer-reviewed proof of this assertion.
    what a curious request
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,562
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    No, there is no evidence or proof of anatomically modern humans anywhere 150,000 kya.
    I will ask again, what is your peer-reviewed proof of this assertion.
    what a curious request
    How so? This is a science forum, and there has always been a policy of show your sources when asked or retract your statement.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    No, there is no evidence or proof of anatomically modern humans anywhere 150,000 kya.

    I am not disputing any genetic drift models here. What I am disputing is the claim that anatomically modern humans bred to multiple hominids 100,000-150,000 years ago. That is impossible. Anatomically modern humans (We) are the product of those crosses, not the creators of them.
    As far as I am aware, there is nobody claiming the cross breeding happened 100,000-150,000 years ago. Maybe someone is arguing that. I just haven't heard of it. Did you find that in the paper somewhere? Or did you find it in some other source?

    As I mentioned, Neanderthals were still around up until about 33,000 years ago. Eurasians could have cross bred to them any time up until then.

    It would be courteous of you to tell me where I can read about it, maybe link me to the specific spot so I don't have to filter through 100 links searching for something that may not be there at all. I think you'll notice that I've been doing that for you when I make claims you find dubious.


    About 25% of the genes in humans and chimps are identical/shared. If we use the 6 million split time theory applied there, then right off the bat, neandertals/denisovans/other hominids and modern humans should have roughly about 80-85% (?) identical/shared genes. I want you to actually wrap your mind around that for a minute because that only leaves room for about 15-20% to be from other sources after it is estimated modern humans had a population split from neandertals.
    You have to be careful reading about DNA analysis, because the numbers can vary depending on how you count them.

    Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Humans and Chimps share 30% exact matched according to this article.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chimpanzee Genome Project Article
    Typical human and chimp homologs of proteins differ in only an average of two amino acids. About 30 percent of all human proteins are identical in sequence to the corresponding chimp protein. As mentioned above, gene duplications are a major source of differences between human and chimp genetic material, with about 2.7 percent of the genome now representing differences having been produced by gene duplications or deletions during approximately 6 million years[4] since humans and chimps diverged from their common evolutionary ancestor. The comparable variation within human populations is 0.5 percent.
    Neanderthal genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But if you look at this other article, specifically detailing the Neanderthals genome progject, it mentions in passing at the outset that 98.8% of human DNA (the base pairs, anyway) is a match to chimps, and 99.7% (of the base pairs) are a match between humans and neanderthals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neanderthal Genome Project Article
    According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.[4] (Other studies concerning the commonality between chimps and humans have modified the commonality of 98% to a commonality of only 94%, showing that the genetic gap between humans and chimps is bigger than originally thought.)[
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Africans have another 13% genetic contribution from other archaic hominids in addition to 80-85% already identical/shared with other hominids. All these archaic hominids, in total, account for 93-98% (roughly) of the genetic make up of africans. Now, how much does that leave for this so called imaginary african modern human living in africa some 150,000 kya to contribute? 2-7%?

    Some eurasians have another 10% added to the 80-85%, that leaves about 5-10% contribution from a different hominid beyond the ones we know about, right?

    Again, what makes modern humans what we are is multiple hominids from multiple regions... We are not the product/decendants of a made up modern human roaming in africa some 150,000 kya that the out of africa people love to fantasize about.
    Why do you say "contribution" if you don't know whether they are contributions or just common inheritances?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    No, there is no evidence or proof of anatomically modern humans anywhere 150,000 kya.
    I will ask again, what is your peer-reviewed proof of this assertion.
    what a curious request
    How so? This is a science forum, and there has always been a policy of show your sources when asked or retract your statement.
    following the bouncing ball here
    roughly Gonzales said(of evidence) there is none
    and you responded by asking for a reference to a peer reviewed journal that supports that negative
    and
    I can't recall any peer reviewed articles that say roughly
    "We went and looked, and went and looked again and went and looked again, but didn't find anything."
    so---publish this non finding anyway
    ?
    ergo, "curious"
    ok?
    ............
    seriously
    what is an "early modern human"?
    From what i've gleaned, it seems to have to do with the rounding of the skull, and shrinking of the brow ridges, but remains otherwise unclassified into a recognizeable sub species.
    for these "early modern humans" (whatever they are) there are claims of (north east africa)160,000ybp at Herto, 195,000ybp at omo1, (south africa)115,000ybp at border cave,
    (israel) 92,000 ybp, (asia)139,000ybp at Liujiang, china, 100,000ybp at Zhirendong, china, (europe) 36,000ybp in romania, (australia)60,000 ybp---[here's a kicker---whatever shared mutations must have been in australia's aboriginies shortly after the time of our sub species near extinction event circa 70,000ybp(see tobo)] assuming that we all agree that the australians are "fully modern homo sapiens sapiens then we have a likely late bracket for a date when "fully modern humans" evolved.,

    what is an "anatomically modern human"?
    are we talking about all of homo sapiens, or just our sub species, homo sapiens sapiens?

    ............
    (wild guess)
    It seems likely that homo sapiens sapiens had developed far enough to earn that classification before 70,000ybp
    and that pockets of our subspecies survived in various warmer southern locations -----------then, they bred with just about anything that looked human, and diversity from other indigenous populations re-entered the gene pool,

    what a pity that we don't have heidelbergensis' dna to compare ourselves to
    it is generally accepted that we descended from heidelbergensis, as did denesovians, neanderthals, and (most likely) others
    and heidelbergensis was around for a very long time---maybe 1,000,000 years----(I suspect that one day, current fossils classified as Heidelbergensis will be devided into other sub species catagories)
    .............
    on another note, mdna seems a biased means of comparison from which to draw wholistic interpretations.
    it's 1:24 pm
    do you know where your ancestors came from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Some scientists say, we do not share DNA with homo neanderthalensis.
    Last edited by chad; May 17th, 2012 at 04:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Some scientists say, we do not share DNA with homo neanderthalensis.
    Hull Mon
    yew deleted the most human(animal) part of your post

    ok
    (I got it on e-mail)

    there is some evidence that we find the pheremones of people more genetically different from our own, the most attractive
    (wild guess)
    this has something to do with an inherent imperative to seek out others imunities and adaptive mutations, diversifying and reinforcing (refining?) the gene pool
    ............
    "the heart wants what the heart wants"
    ............
    but
    "cute" works for me too
    ..................
    (edit)
    as/re "communicate"
    i'm reasonably certain that there is a genetic predisposition for some folks to be adept at language and music.
    (observation) most musicians i know(&have known) are(were) also multilingual(adept at learning second or third or fourth or(many) different languages)
    (visual orientation VS aural orientation VS tactile...etc.etc. ...---look to the brain's hard wiring)
    so
    (wild guess)
    some inter(extra?)-sub-species couples were using simple sign language
    while others
    were chatting amiably away
    (or swearing at each other in their native tongues)
    Last edited by sculptor; May 17th, 2012 at 10:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Why do you say "contribution" if you don't know whether they are contributions or just common inheritances?
    Because humans (we) have multiple and different MRCA for many of our genes. At one location you and I can have a MRCA of 750,000 kya while the person down the road from you can share a MRCA with you, for that same gene, at 200,000 kya.

    This simple reality has always shown that populations and genes do not flow in one direction or come from one line (common inheritance / one population) but, they travel in every direction through, and by way of, multiple populations/sources.

    The neandertal genome project tried to come up with a solution/hypothesis to spare the out of africa theory from a swift finish (at least IMO) and they came up with a hypothesis which basically says (paraphrasing of course) that a few homo sapiens left africa about 100,000 kya, bred to neandertals right away, that only the homo sapiens/neandertal hybrids survived, then it was these hybrids, and these hybrids only, that spread throughout the rest of the world while also breeding to other hominids as they moved (such as the denisovans).

    Of course, I disagree with this hypothesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    wild speculation aside
    i think the oldest identifiable fully neanderthal fossils date to 70,000 ybp with 2-3 questionable sites up to 120000 ybp
    it seems that the mousterian predates neanderthal-perhaps a mix of neanderthalensis and heidelbergensis?
    .......
    it seems that during our (homo sapiens sapiens) population bottleneck, the neanderthals suffered more, and their surviving member's morphology changed to shorter and more robust
    ..........
    (wild guess)
    during the last interglacial, which saw temperatures warmer than they are today (10,000 years of balmy abundance)
    the neanderthal migrated north (and left most of their remains at the mercy of the coming glaciers)
    then came the ice
    and the survivors moved south
    then came the deep freeze circa 70,000 ybp
    and their population shrunk to barely viable
    and never recovered
    ................
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    The neandertal genome project tried to come up with a solution/hypothesis to spare the out of africa theory from a swift finish (at least IMO) and they came up with a hypothesis which basically says (paraphrasing of course) that a few homo sapiens left africa about 100,000 kya, bred to neandertals right away, that only the homo sapiens/neandertal hybrids survived, then it was these hybrids, and these hybrids only, that spread throughout the rest of the world while also breeding to other hominids as they moved (such as the denisovans).

    Of course, I disagree with this hypothesis.
    What article have you been reading on this? The article I posted described the question of admixture as being quite unsettled in the study, with alternate views ranging from an expectation of 0% mix (not even afterward,.... never having mixed ever) to maybe up to 20%, but always with a statistical confidence of less than 95% (95% being the official "you can/can't publish this" limit for scientific statistics.)

    In other words, the study never claimed to have established whether any admixture had occurred or not. I brought it up to show that modern science CANNOT say whether a gene is common inheritance or the result of admixture to a very high confidence level. Insisting that your pet theory is absolutely certain to be accurate when the evidence is flimsy is NOT proper use of the scientific method.

    If you would simply step back from this far enough to admit your hypothesis is one of many possible hypotheses, and that people may adhere to another hypothesis for reasons other than being racists, I think this could return to being a civil discussion. I don't ascribe a 0% chance to your hypothesis being accurate. It just doesn't appear likely, for the reason I previously gave: if we assume homo-sapien is the result of admixture, then we'd have to assume almost every species on the planet is the result of a similar process, because we have little more reason to believe it in our own case than in the cases of most of the other species out there.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    The neandertal genome project tried to come up with a solution/hypothesis to spare the out of africa theory from a swift finish (at least IMO) and they came up with a hypothesis which basically says (paraphrasing of course) that a few homo sapiens left africa about 100,000 kya, bred to neandertals right away, that only the homo sapiens/neandertal hybrids survived, then it was these hybrids, and these hybrids only, that spread throughout the rest of the world while also breeding to other hominids as they moved (such as the denisovans).

    Of course, I disagree with this hypothesis.
    What article have you been reading on this? The article I posted described the question of admixture as being quite unsettled in the study, with alternate views ranging from an expectation of 0% mix (not even afterward,.... never having mixed ever) to maybe up to 20%, but always with a statistical confidence of less than 95% (95% being the official "you can/can't publish this" limit for scientific statistics.)

    In other words, the study never claimed to have established whether any admixture had occurred or not. I brought it up to show that modern science CANNOT say whether a gene is common inheritance or the result of admixture to a very high confidence level. Insisting that your pet theory is absolutely certain to be accurate when the evidence is flimsy is NOT proper use of the scientific method.

    If you would simply step back from this far enough to admit your hypothesis is one of many possible hypotheses, and that people may adhere to another hypothesis for reasons other than being racists, I think this could return to being a civil discussion. I don't ascribe a 0% chance to your hypothesis being accurate. It just doesn't appear likely, for the reason I previously gave: if we assume homo-sapien is the result of admixture, then we'd have to assume almost every species on the planet is the result of a similar process, because we have little more reason to believe it in our own case than in the cases of most of the other species out there.
    Watch this Carta video (Ed Green) Kojak.

    There are other hypothesis, no doubt about that but, and unfortunately, hypothesis that do not include admixture are wrong IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    There are other hypothesis, no doubt about that but, and unfortunately, hypothesis that do not include admixture are wrong IMO.
    You're hypothesis and the part we reject is your contention that it's not just admixture, (which you study does tend to support), but migration. Admixture does not automatically mean migration--it can be much slower and between adjacent stationary groups for example, or produces by one tiny group that did migrate and over time have some of it's genes spread through a larger population.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    There are other hypothesis, no doubt about that but, and unfortunately, hypothesis that do not include admixture are wrong IMO.
    You're hypothesis and the part we reject is your contention that it's not just admixture, (which you study does tend to support), but migration. Admixture does not automatically mean migration--it can be much slower and between adjacent stationary groups for example, or produces by one tiny group that did migrate and over time have some of it's genes spread through a larger population.
    A simple and reasonable solution to how and why all of us have multiple hominid genes, IMO, also includes exactly what you are stating here as a possibility. I have written that one of the probable and likely ways that these genes spread between hominids is due to two relatively close populations radiating these genes back and forth between each other by way of multiple means...... Including your own statement - "it can be much slower and between adjacent stationary groups for example, or produces by one tiny group that did migrate and over time have some of it's genes spread through a larger population."

    Last edited by gonzales56; May 28th, 2012 at 11:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    Watch this Carta video (Ed Green) Kojak.

    There are other hypothesis, no doubt about that but, and unfortunately, hypothesis that do not include admixture are wrong IMO.
    Why are you posting Ed Green's hypothesis? From watching the film, I can see he clearly disagrees with you. Did you watch the film yourself, before you posted it?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    genes back and forth between each other by way of multiple means
    My objection is you continue to argue as if these other means refutes the out of Africa hypothesis--when they clearly do not. All they do is slightly nuance that hypothesis with the fact that some tiny fraction of reverse gene flow was happening.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Why are you posting Ed Green's hypothesis? From watching the film, I can see he clearly disagrees with you. Did you watch the film yourself, before you posted it?
    I wrote: "The neandertal genome project tried to come up with a solution/hypothesis to spare the out of africa theory from a swift finish (at least IMO) and they came up with a hypothesis which basically says (paraphrasing of course) that a few homo sapiens left africa about 100,000 kya, bred to neandertals right away, that only the homo sapiens/neandertal hybrids survived, then it was these hybrids, and these hybrids only, that spread throughout the rest of the world while also breeding to other hominids as they moved (such as the denisovans).

    Of course, I disagree with this hypothesis."

    Then you had wrote that you have never heard of such a hypothesis and you asked me were I seen/heard such a thing.... Thus my link...

    And, of course, as I stated when I first mentioned the hypothesis to you, I disagree with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    genes back and forth between each other by way of multiple means
    My objection is you continue to argue as if these other means refutes the out of Africa hypothesis--when they clearly do not. All they do is slightly nuance that hypothesis with the fact that some tiny fraction of reverse gene flow was happening.
    I will try and make this quick for you Mr Fox.... Known and unknown "archaic hominid/s" mixture differences of 10% (for eurasians) and 13% (for sub-saharan africans) is far from a tiny fraction. In fact, that amount, that percentage, leaves nearly nothing left for a fictitious out of africa modern human to contribute. How so? Again, it is simple math.

    We share about 25% of our genes with chimps due to our common ancestor/population. The 75% difference has occurred due to a 6 million year split. For neandertals/denisovans/others, the same math tells us that we share, have in common, due to our common ancestor/population, about 90% of our genes. Do you understand that? Do you understand what that means?

    That means that there is very little room percentage wise.

    Add another 4% of identical genes to neandertals for eurasians and 6% denisovan for other eurasians, added to the 90% they already share due to a common ancestor, and that only leaves 6% for some eurasians and 0 for others.

    Add in the 13% archaic hominid genes that sub-saharan africans have with the 90% they already have in common with neandertals, and well..... Where are the vast amount of genes from a 150,000 kya out of africa modern human going to fit?

    These percentages are huge, they are very meaningful. They are not tiny fractions by any stretch of the imagination.

    If we all came from one hominid line, one source, out of africa, then we would all be equally related to neandertals/denisovans/others, we would all share common genes with neandertals at about 90% and the other 10% within Us, all of us, would come from 1 hominid line and no where else but, that is not where we come from nor is that who we are, and in reality, the 10% we modern humans do have that is different than the 90% comes from multiple hominids and multiple regions. It does not come from a fictitious out of africa modern human.... We are looking at the dna/genes now and are finding out it is coming from the neandertals/denisovans/and other "archaic" hominids.
    Last edited by gonzales56; May 31st, 2012 at 01:45 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    To be honest your using many apples to oranges comparisons.

    The overiding and compelling evidence for the out of Africa is there lies the greatest genetic diversity and many alleles completely absent in other parts of the world. Nothing you've shown comes anywhere close to a rebuke of that strong evidence including the proof of some limited reverse gene flow which even you implied could be explained by mechanisms other than migrations.


    The
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    (wild guess) during the next glaciation, sea levels will fall to the levels of the previous glaciation, exposing the ancient shorelines(of 70,000ybp), and archaeologists a thousand years from now will have a more compelling story to tell

    if i wanna be part of that record, i think i'd wanna be buried farther south, or in the driftless zone of south western wisconsin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    We share about 25% of our genes with chimps due to our common ancestor/population. The 75% difference has occurred due to a 6 million year split.
    That's if you only count base pairs (and even then the overlap is 30%, not 25%). If you look at the full genome, humans are a 98.8% match to chimps and 99.7% to neanderthals.

    Check out my post #106 if you need more explanation.


    For neandertals/denisovans/others, the same math tells us that we share, have in common, due to our common ancestor/population, about 90% of our genes. Do you understand that? Do you understand what that means?

    That means that there is very little room percentage wise.

    Add another 4% of identical genes to neandertals for eurasians and 6% denisovan for other eurasians, added to the 90% they already share due to a common ancestor, and that only leaves 6% for some eurasians and 0 for others.

    Add in the 13% archaic hominid genes that sub-saharan africans have with the 90% they already have in common with neandertals, and well..... Where are the vast amount of genes from a 150,000 kya out of africa modern human going to fit?

    These percentages are huge, they are very meaningful. They are not tiny fractions by any stretch of the imagination.
    I'll have to check over it again, but if I'm not mistaken, the 4% is not 4% of the whole. It's 4% of the match. The remaining matched genes occur with equal frequency in African and non-African test subjects.

    And also that 4% is being taken out of only the narrow range of genes that occur exclusively on both humans and neanderthals (any gene overlap with Chimpanzee gets removed prior to doing this), so it's 4% of a very small part. Taken as a percentage of the whole, it would be quite a lot less of our total genome.


    If we all came from one hominid line, one source, out of africa, then we would all be equally related to neandertals/denisovans/others, we would all share common genes with neandertals at about 90% and the other 10% within Us, all of us, would come from 1 hominid line and no where else but, that is not where we come from nor is that who we are, and in reality, the 10% we modern humans do have that is different than the 90% comes from multiple hominids and multiple regions. It does not come from a fictitious out of africa modern human.... We are looking at the dna/genes now and are finding out it is coming from the neandertals/denisovans/and other "archaic" hominids.
    I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion if you thought the numbers were that steeply slanted. Fortunately they are not.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Why are you posting Ed Green's hypothesis? From watching the film, I can see he clearly disagrees with you. Did you watch the film yourself, before you posted it?
    I wrote: "The neandertal genome project tried to come up with a solution/hypothesis to spare the out of africa theory from a swift finish (at least IMO) and they came up with a hypothesis which basically says (paraphrasing of course) that a few homo sapiens left africa about 100,000 kya, bred to neandertals right away, that only the homo sapiens/neandertal hybrids survived, then it was these hybrids, and these hybrids only, that spread throughout the rest of the world while also breeding to other hominids as they moved (such as the denisovans).

    Of course, I disagree with this hypothesis."

    Then you had wrote that you have never heard of such a hypothesis and you asked me were I seen/heard such a thing.... Thus my link...

    And, of course, as I stated when I first mentioned the hypothesis to you, I disagree with it.
    There's no requirement that the mixing with Neanderthals happened "right away" as you put it.

    You're biggest misunderstanding is this part.

    that only the homo sapiens/neandertal hybrids survived, then it was these hybrids, and these hybrids only, that spread throughout the rest of the world while also breeding to other hominids as they moved (such as the denisovans).


    If a hybrid female and a non-hybrid male get married, they collectively have hybrid offspring. Nobody is suggesting the non-hybrid male's offspring didn't survive. They fully survived. Both individuals' offspring fully survived.


    It also isn't a matter of trying to say the neanderthal's DNA was better than Human DNA overall for why it remained. The best x percent of Neanderthal DNA is likely to be better than the worst x percent of homo-sapien. As long as some part of the DNA (the best part) happens to match the same part of the code as some of the worst part of homo-sapien, that part is going to win. The fact we ended up with 4% of their DNA (with the remaining 96% being either homo-sapien or left over DNA from a common ancestor), rather than them ending up with 4% of our DNA (with the remaining 96% being their own or common ancestor) should tell you something.

    The most beautiful Neanderthal female was probably better looking than the least beautiful homo-sapien female.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    How is this possible that we only have 4% of Neanderthal DNA when we share a large percentage with every other species on the planet?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The 4% isn't really 4% overall. To explain it really effectively I think I would need a chalk board so I could draw some Venn Diagrams.

    All the DNA common to chimps, humans, and neanderthals, is left out. That's a lot of DNA, way more than 4%. It's ignored. The researchers only looked at the sliver of DNA that existed in Humans and Neanderthals, but did not exist in Chimps.

    Of that DNA, there was 4% that was only found in people outside of Africa. That big of a difference (small though it may seem) requires an explanation. It wouldn't be likely to happen by chance, from one population randomly drifting away from the other over time.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The 4% isn't really 4% overall. To explain it really effectively I think I would need a chalk board so I could draw some Venn Diagrams.

    All the DNA common to chimps, humans, and neanderthals, is left out. That's a lot of DNA, way more than 4%. It's ignored. The researchers only looked at the sliver of DNA that existed in Humans and Neanderthals, but did not exist in Chimps.

    Of that DNA, there was 4% that was only found in people outside of Africa. That big of a difference (small though it may seem) requires an explanation. It wouldn't be likely to happen by chance, from one population randomly drifting away from the other over time.
    The study was done using present day live Human DNA from people inside of Africa and those that live outside of Africa to compare with the Neanderthal DNA, correct? Those differences may just be Human error since they had to deal with DNA that may have been contaminated over time or had degenerated over time. The diet of Neanderthal's was not the same food we consume today since the food we consume also has evolved over time or those differences may be the result of disease markers that do not afflict modern man today. Does science know what that 4% difference consist of in how exactly it was used in making different proteins that are not seen in today's humans?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The 4% isn't really 4% overall. To explain it really effectively I think I would need a chalk board so I could draw some Venn Diagrams.

    All the DNA common to chimps, humans, and neanderthals, is left out. That's a lot of DNA, way more than 4%. It's ignored. The researchers only looked at the sliver of DNA that existed in Humans and Neanderthals, but did not exist in Chimps.

    Of that DNA, there was 4% that was only found in people outside of Africa. That big of a difference (small though it may seem) requires an explanation. It wouldn't be likely to happen by chance, from one population randomly drifting away from the other over time.
    I wonder what the significance of this gene counting (or bean counting) actually is. It's been said that 98 percent of our DNA is "junk" DNA, or at least it is DNA which we do not know the purpose for. This means that the really important stuff is contained in only the remaining 2%.

    If we share 96 percent of our DNA with chimps, does that mean we can climb a tree 96 percent as fast as a chimp? Does it mean that a chimp will score 96 percent as well as a human on a language test? No it doesn't. So why attach so much significance to these numbers?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    To be honest your using many apples to oranges comparisons.

    The overiding and compelling evidence for the out of Africa is there lies the greatest genetic diversity and many alleles completely absent in other parts of the world. Nothing you've shown comes anywhere close to a rebuke of that strong evidence including the proof of some limited reverse gene flow which even you implied could be explained by mechanisms other than migrations.


    The

    It just means there is greater admixture in that region..... if one goes by those numbers...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Why are you posting Ed Green's hypothesis? From watching the film, I can see he clearly disagrees with you. Did you watch the film yourself, before you posted it?
    I wrote: "The neandertal genome project tried to come up with a solution/hypothesis to spare the out of africa theory from a swift finish (at least IMO) and they came up with a hypothesis which basically says (paraphrasing of course) that a few homo sapiens left africa about 100,000 kya, bred to neandertals right away, that only the homo sapiens/neandertal hybrids survived, then it was these hybrids, and these hybrids only, that spread throughout the rest of the world while also breeding to other hominids as they moved (such as the denisovans).

    Of course, I disagree with this hypothesis."

    Then you had wrote that you have never heard of such a hypothesis and you asked me were I seen/heard such a thing.... Thus my link...

    And, of course, as I stated when I first mentioned the hypothesis to you, I disagree with it.
    There's no requirement that the mixing with Neanderthals happened "right away" as you put it.

    You're biggest misunderstanding is this part.

    that only the homo sapiens/neandertal hybrids survived, then it was these hybrids, and these hybrids only, that spread throughout the rest of the world while also breeding to other hominids as they moved (such as the denisovans).


    If a hybrid female and a non-hybrid male get married, they collectively have hybrid offspring. Nobody is suggesting the non-hybrid male's offspring didn't survive. They fully survived. Both individuals' offspring fully survived.


    It also isn't a matter of trying to say the neanderthal's DNA was better than Human DNA overall for why it remained. The best x percent of Neanderthal DNA is likely to be better than the worst x percent of homo-sapien. As long as some part of the DNA (the best part) happens to match the same part of the code as some of the worst part of homo-sapien, that part is going to win. The fact we ended up with 4% of their DNA (with the remaining 96% being either homo-sapien or left over DNA from a common ancestor), rather than them ending up with 4% of our DNA (with the remaining 96% being their own or common ancestor) should tell you something.

    The most beautiful Neanderthal female was probably better looking than the least beautiful homo-sapien female.
    Not a single none human/hominid hybrid has survived to this day. There is not one single hominid that is of one single hominid or one single subspecies that is alive today. Every human alive today is a hybrid, a mix, the product of crosses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    How is this possible that we only have 4% of Neanderthal DNA when we share a large percentage with every other species on the planet?
    We all have far more shared DNA, both by way of common ancestors and directly, than 4%. The 4% is the just the estimated % deference shared with neandertals between sub saharan africans and eurasians.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    It just means there is greater admixture in that region..... if one goes by those numbers...
    So... now your theory is that not only did the mixing of Donosovans, Neanderthals... etc happen to give us homo-sapiens (a species with traits none of them had) one time..... there were different mixes that also gave us homo-sapiens too?

    Really, for a chance thing like that to happen once is crazy enough. Wouldn't it be just as likely for a hybrid of all the species to be as not-special as the various parents it had? Different, sure, but not necessarily a better kind of different.

    Why is spontaneous mutation of a single species so horrible a theory? Are you a creationist who doesn't believe in upwards evolution?



    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    Not a single none human/hominid hybrid has survived to this day. There is not one single hominid that is of one single hominid or one single subspecies that is alive today. Every human alive today is a hybrid, a mix, the product of crosses.
    I think I may have poorly explained how this works. Let's break it into steps.

    1) - A human and a Neanderthal breed, yielding say... 5 surviving kids

    2) - The Half Neanderthals marry humans, and they breed. We'll say 5 kids per pair, so 25 quarter Neanderthals are alive now.

    3) - The Quarter Neanderthals all marry humans, and they breed. 5 kids per pair, so now there are 125 1/8 neanderthals out there.

    4) - Most of the 1/8 neanderthals marry humans (there are enough 1/8 neanderthals alive now that they can marry each other as well, without marrying a 1st cousin). Let's say 100 marry humans, and the remaining 25 marry other 1/8 neanderthals. 5 kids per pair, so we get 500 1/16 Neanderthals, and 125 1/8 Neanderthals.

    Can you see how this continues? The neanderthal DNA will gradually get spread so thin it's barely noticeable, but those few genes which are strongly preferred over homo-sapien DNA will stay no matter how many mixings we go through, because natural selection simply prefers them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So... now your theory is that not only did the mixing of Donosovans, Neanderthals... etc happen to give us homo-sapiens (a species with traits none of them had) one time..... there were different mixes that also gave us homo-sapiens too?

    Really, for a chance thing like that to happen once is crazy enough. Wouldn't it be just as likely for a hybrid of all the species to be as not-special as the various parents it had? Different, sure, but not necessarily a better kind of different.

    Why is spontaneous mutation of a single species so horrible a theory? Are you a creationist who doesn't believe in upwards evolution?



    I think I may have poorly explained how this works. Let's break it into steps.

    1) - A human and a Neanderthal breed, yielding say... 5 surviving kids

    2) - The Half Neanderthals marry humans, and they breed. We'll say 5 kids per pair, so 25 quarter Neanderthals are alive now.

    3) - The Quarter Neanderthals all marry humans, and they breed. 5 kids per pair, so now there are 125 1/8 neanderthals out there.

    4) - Most of the 1/8 neanderthals marry humans (there are enough 1/8 neanderthals alive now that they can marry each other as well, without marrying a 1st cousin). Let's say 100 marry humans, and the remaining 25 marry other 1/8 neanderthals. 5 kids per pair, so we get 500 1/16 Neanderthals, and 125 1/8 Neanderthals.

    Can you see how this continues? The neanderthal DNA will gradually get spread so thin it's barely noticeable, but those few genes which are strongly preferred over homo-sapien DNA will stay no matter how many mixings we go through, because natural selection simply prefers them.

    I have tried to explain this to you many time and I will try and do it again.

    Sub-saharan africans have acquired 13% of their genetic make up from at least 1 other subspecies of hominid that eurasians did not. The crossing and breeding between different hominids clearly was not unusual, it was normal.

    Divergent/coalescent times also reveal a lot. For instance, we know that out of all the genetic changes between modern humans and our living relatives, only a small percentage of those changes have occurred in the last 100-150 thousand years.

    Lets use your theory for a minute, ok? Modern humans evolved in africa some 150 thousand years ago, right? That is the out of africa theory, correct?

    Fortunately for Us, we can then look at humans alive today and the neandertal DNA we have in order to see which peoples have (had for neandertals) more genes from our ancestors from between about 120-150 thousand years ago... And here are the results....

    Starting at about 120 kya

    Europeans/French = 9.8%
    Chinese/Han = 7.8%
    Papuan = 5.9%
    Sub Saharan African/San = 1.7%

    30 kya Neandertal = 2.5%

    This creates two main problems for you...

    1. All modern humans and neandertals share genes from common ancestors from 150 kya.

    2. The Neandertal DNA studied shows those neandertals have more genes from those ancestors than san africans do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    ..... It's been said that 98 percent of our DNA is "junk" DNA, or at least it is DNA which we do not know the purpose for. This means that the really important stuff is contained in only the remaining 2%. ... ?
    (wild guess)
    'tain't no such thing as "junk" DNA
    most of the "junk" is just dormant-
    offering opportunities for survival that aren't currently important

    see "genetic learning", and the work of baldwin and waddington
    ----which allows adaptability of an organism to a changed invironment and seems to happen too fast to require a new mutation
    Last edited by sculptor; June 7th, 2012 at 06:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Tor
    Tor is offline
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Do_It_Like_A_Dude12 View Post
    Background Info: Even though the line of evolutionary descent for Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis diverged 700,000 years ago there seems to be new evidence that neanderthals weren't the brutish, uncivilized cavemen that popular culture makes them out to be nowadays. There has been new evidence that neanderthals work makeup, hunted large game and even may have managed to think up a language (granted, with a more limited number of sounds due to the higher positioning of their tongues in their mouths). Their brain size is actually larger than ours so some anthropologists argue they may have been even smarter than we are, but that's up for debate. Lastly, it seems that far from having deep voices and making apelike grunts like we imagine the larynx of a neanderthal was squatter than ours meaning their voices would have been much higher pitched and clearer due to their large chest cavities. Wouldn't it have been interesting if when the two species met about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago we were actually the ones who sounded apelike and primitive to them?

    But anyhow, the real subject up for discussion is the fact that scientists have recently discovered that 70% of the world's population carries between 1 and 4 percent neanderthal DNA. This is equivalent to if one of your two or three times great grandparents had been a FULL neanderthal which is a huge amount of DNA for a species that went extinct 30,000 years ago. It would also change the theory that humans killed off neanderthals in a quest for territory; instead, in light of new evidence of their intelligence it seems neanderthals might have been seen as potential mates by early humans and simply been bred out as a recognizable species due to the sheer overwhelming number of humans vs. neanderthals. So, were neanderthals brutes or charming and witty victims of their own success?

    OPINIONS, I'm so excited and fascinated by all this!
    Divergence time is perhaps closer to 500 kya (500,000 years) but, 700,000 years is extremely close as well. To put that into perspective, the divergence time (DNA coalescence / nuclear DNA common ancestor) between a French (basque) and African (San / Yoruba) person, on average, is about 800,000 years. It is very common for modern humans to be more related to neanderthals than they are to other modern humans.

    In fact, Eurasians do not share just 1-4% of their DNA with Neandertals, they share 99.7%+ of their DNA with Neandertals. Africans (San / Yoruba) share 1-4% less with Neandertals than Eurasians do but, 95-98% of their DNA is still identical to Neandertals. The reduced percentage in Africans is perhaps from them migrating deep into Africa and breeding with other Hominids.
    Considering that science cannot make up their minds the differences between chimps and humans that some say 95%, 98%, or 99%, it is hard to accept that Neanderthals share only 1-4% with modern humans. Some say we diverged from common ancestor at 600,000 yrs, or 800,000 yrs for neanderthals and humans. Wiki says the gene loss for hair occurred 240,000 yrs ago but yet today we still have a large percentage of men who have alot of body hair.
    When someone throws out a figure like 4%, they are talking about the contribution to the family tree. They aren't saying we have 4% uniquely Neanderthal DNA. If I had a great grandfather who was Finnish, I might say I was 12.5% Finnish. People are over-analyzing this, when they're just trying to keep it simple - something the layperson can relate to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Tor View Post
    When someone throws out a figure like 4%, they are talking about the contribution to the family tree. They aren't saying we have 4% uniquely Neanderthal DNA. If I had a great grandfather who was Finnish, I might say I was 12.5% Finnish. People are over-analyzing this, when they're just trying to keep it simple - something the layperson can relate to.
    There is a difference between derived DNA and common ancestral DNA. The specific estimated 4% difference between eurasians and sub-saharan africans, due to the origin of these genes, are uniquely neandertal. These genes are Neandertal genes.

    The common ancestor/s who contributed these genes to modern humans and to the neandertals who where tested were an older group/population of neandertals.

    The problem most people have is that they think, thought or mentally registered a concept based around the foolish idea that modern humans are 100% one thing, and they were told that this one 100% thing was/is a special one of a kind african hominid (mind you, that does not exist and has never existed).... Unfortunately, when one then tells these same people that they have to now add in 4% for neandertals, they simply assume modern humans are now 96% one special african hominid and 4% neandertal.

    Time and time again you will hear people claim that 4% is nothing compared to the imaginary 96% they think modern humans have from an imaginary african modern human hominid some 150 thousand years ago, when in fact, this is just not how modern humans evolved, nor is it where the vast majority of our DNA comes from.

    We know that about 88% of human/neandertal genes are shared ancestral genes.... They are identical due to common ancestors beyond 300,000 years. This means that modern humans owe 88% of their genes to hominids who were not modern humans and who lived beyond 300,000 years. This only leaves 12% between today and 300,000 years ago to be contributed.

    Now...

    Add in 13% recent admixture for africans
    Add in 4% recent neandertal admixture for eurasians
    Add 6% recent denisovan admixture for eurasians

    Where is the imaginary 150,000 year old newly evolved, one line, african modern human? Where is the DNA?

    This shows that we, all modern humans, are not the product of an imaginary single hominid but, the product of multiple hominids.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The question is with who we could actually have been able to interbreed with. At some point, we became genomically isolated from preceding ancestors. You have been running under the assumption that we interbred with everything running along on two legs with a smile, but have not provided much in terms of specific evidence. Do you have actual data as to who we could have physically interbred with?

    Again, there is no dispute that we evolved out of a variety of ancestors and that some interbreeding must have taken place somewhere. We have direct evidence of interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovians. but nothing direct that I know of with anything else.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    The question is with who we could actually have been able to interbreed with. At some point, we became genomically isolated from preceding ancestors. You have been running under the assumption that we interbred with everything running along on two legs with a smile, but have not provided much in terms of specific evidence. Do you have actual data as to who we could have physically interbred with?

    Again, there is no dispute that we evolved out of a variety of ancestors and that some interbreeding must have taken place somewhere. We have direct evidence of interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovians. but nothing direct that I know of with anything else.
    Hull-Mon
    I've heard stories of people attempting to breed with damned near anything---including farm animals
    ... that's where we get the story of the minotaur, and other "half man" creatures
    Pasiphae wasn't the first nor last with that desire
    .................
    and
    after generations, archaeologists have only scratched the surface
    seems likely that another recent homo(ancestor?) will be found,
    then we can have this correspondance all over again
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    seems likely that another recent homo(ancestor?) will be found,
    then we can have this correspondance all over again
    I think they have a possible one already. Thing is, it has actually been found, instead of being speculated upon, but taken as fact as Gonzales is doing.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    seems likely that another recent homo(ancestor?) will be found,
    ...
    I think they have a possible one already. Thing is, it has actually been found, instead of being speculated upon, but taken as fact as Gonzales is doing.
    where?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    We know that about 88% of human/neandertal genes are shared ancestral genes.... They are identical due to common ancestors beyond 300,000 years. This means that modern humans owe 88% of their genes to hominids who were not modern humans and who lived beyond 300,000 years. This only leaves 12% between today and 300,000 years ago to be contributed.

    Now...

    Add in 13% recent admixture for africans
    Add in 4% recent neandertal admixture for eurasians
    Add 6% recent denisovan admixture for eurasians

    Where is the imaginary 150,000 year old newly evolved, one line, african modern human? Where is the DNA?

    This shows that we, all modern humans, are not the product of an imaginary single hominid but, the product of multiple hominids.
    As I was trying to explain, I'm pretty sure it doesn't add like that. You're taking the numbers out of context and then applying direct arithmetic.

    This is the problem with starting with a theory, and then working backwards.



    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    I have tried to explain this to you many time and I will try and do it again.

    Sub-saharan africans have acquired 13% of their genetic make up from at least 1 other subspecies of hominid that eurasians did not. The crossing and breeding between different hominids clearly was not unusual, it was normal.

    Divergent/coalescent times also reveal a lot. For instance, we know that out of all the genetic changes between modern humans and our living relatives, only a small percentage of those changes have occurred in the last 100-150 thousand years.

    Lets use your theory for a minute, ok? Modern humans evolved in africa some 150 thousand years ago, right? That is the out of africa theory, correct?

    Fortunately for Us, we can then look at humans alive today and the neandertal DNA we have in order to see which peoples have (had for neandertals) more genes from our ancestors from between about 120-150 thousand years ago... And here are the results....

    Starting at about 120 kya

    Europeans/French = 9.8%
    Chinese/Han = 7.8%
    Papuan = 5.9%
    Sub Saharan African/San = 1.7%

    30 kya Neandertal = 2.5%

    This creates two main problems for you...

    1. All modern humans and neandertals share genes from common ancestors from 150 kya.

    2. The Neandertal DNA studied shows those neandertals have more genes from those ancestors than san africans do.
    I must agree that approach here is a good analytic strategy, but where are these numbers coming from?

    Do you have a source I can look at? It's important for me to be able to know what these are percentages of, whether it be base pairs, or overall, and whether they refer to a narrow range of the genome (like the aforementioned 4% difference between Eurasion and Sub Sahara African does).
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    seems likely that another recent homo(ancestor?) will be found,
    ...
    I think they have a possible one already. Thing is, it has actually been found, instead of being speculated upon, but taken as fact as Gonzales is doing.
    where?
    Sorry, posting from my phone:
    'Red Deer Cave people' may be new species of human | Science | The Guardian
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NONYA
    Posts
    5
    we gained are instinct from those guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NONYA
    Posts
    5
    they were killed by time they didnt want to adapt to fit with humans so they killed theiselves off by not converging to be with humans
    because they feared them too different...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    seems likely that another recent homo(ancestor?) will be found,
    then we can have this correspondance all over again
    I think they have a possible one already. Thing is, it has actually been found, instead of being speculated upon, but taken as fact as Gonzales is doing.
    Another hominid, at least one, has already been found to have contributed to some modern human genomes.

    Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa
    "Our inference methods reject the hypothesis that the ancestral population that gave rise to AMH in Africa was genetically isolated and point to several candidate regions that may have introgressed from an archaic source(s)."

    "central Africa may have been the homeland of a now-extinct archaic form that hybridized with modern humans."

    "We have relied on an indirect approach to detect ancient admixture in African populations because there are no African ancient DNA sequences to make direct comparisons with our candidate loci. We compared human and Neandertal RRM2P4 sequences and found that the three derived sites that define the non-African basal lineage are shared with Neandertal. Thus, we verified that this unusual human sequence, which is characterized by a deep haplotype divergence and a small basal clade, is indeed shared with an archaic form. Further genome-level (i.e., multilocus) analysis will also shed light on the process of archaic admixture, which is likely to be more complicated than we have modeled. For instance, the multimodal likelihood surface in suggests that gene flow among strongly subdivided populations in Africa may characterize multiple stages of human evolution in Africa."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    As I was trying to explain, I'm pretty sure it doesn't add like that. You're taking the numbers out of context and then applying direct arithmetic.

    This is the problem with starting with a theory, and then working backwards.




    I must agree that approach here is a good analytic strategy, but where are these numbers coming from?

    Do you have a source I can look at? It's important for me to be able to know what these are percentages of, whether it be base pairs, or overall, and whether they refer to a narrow range of the genome (like the aforementioned 4% difference between Eurasion and Sub Sahara African does).
    The 88% comes directly from the number of human lineage changes/genes (since we split with apes, chimps, etc.) that humans and neandertals share prior to the population split between neandertals and humans 300,000 years ago (estimated).

    So in another words, 100% of the changes modern humans have under gone since our common ancestor with chimps, we share 88% of those changes with neandertals beyond 300,000 years ago. Any common genes that coalesce between amh and neandertals between 20-300 thousand years ago means that either mixing of multiple hominids occurred (you have to keep in mind that many believe amh did not even exist at this time) or amh and neandertals never really underwent a population split anywhere close to 300,000 years ago.

    Link Click on this this click on - "A draft sequence and preliminary analysis of the Neandertal genome" (Green, R.E. et al., SCIENCE, 07 May 2010)

    "Among 10,535,445 substitutions and 479,863 indels inferred to have occurred on the human lineage, we have information in the Neandertal genome for 3,202,190 and 69,029, i.e., 30% and 14%, respectively. The final catalog thus represents those sequenced positions where we have high confidence in their Neandertal state (SOM Text 11). As expected, the vast majority of those substitutions and indels (87.9% and 87.3%,respectively) occurred before the Neandertal divergence from modern humans.

    Furthermore, whereas in the French, Han, and Papuan individuals, 9.8%, 7.8%, and 5.9% of windows, respectively, show between 0% and 2% divergence to the human reference genome, in the San and the Yoruba this is the case for 1.7% and 3.7%, respectively. For the three Neandertals, 2.2 to 2.5% of windows show 0% to 2% divergence to the reference genome."

    Keep in mind that 4.6% divergence time equals about 300,000 years ago.. 2.3% divergence time is about 150,000 years ago. If there were amh (anatomically modern humans) 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, then there is no way neandertals would share a larger percentage of their evolutionary/specific genes than san africans would/do. It is impossible.

    The neandertals tested were/are 10s of thousands of years old, while the san africans are modern and have had 10s of thousands of more years to acquire even more of these specific genes but, they still carry less evolutionary/specific genes (a smaller percentage) from the modern human line between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago than these few neandertals do/did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    If I'm understanding you right, Gonzalez, you are pointing out that different ethnic groups diverge further from each other than the neanderthal population diverges from itself? But that's hardly fair since the neanderthal population wasn't spread out over as wide an area, and never grew to the same size as human population ultimately did.

    Those population groups appear to diverge due to strongly different environmental selections. Dark skin from Africa, which is really hot. Lighter pigments further up North. ..... etc. Also there's the matter of a larger population possibly giving rise to more mutations per generation.


    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    seems likely that another recent homo(ancestor?) will be found,
    then we can have this correspondance all over again
    I think they have a possible one already. Thing is, it has actually been found, instead of being speculated upon, but taken as fact as Gonzales is doing.
    Another hominid, at least one, has already been found to have contributed to some modern human genomes.

    Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa
    "Our inference methods reject the hypothesis that the ancestral population that gave rise to AMH in Africa was genetically isolated and point to several candidate regions that may have introgressed from an archaic source(s)."

    "central Africa may have been the homeland of a now-extinct archaic form that hybridized with modern humans."


    You're digging up some really good links, but they don't appear to give support to your hypothesis of admixture being the source of Sapiens. They clearly show there was some admixture, but not in the volume you're suggesting so as to obviate the need for a main group to self-evolve from the common ancestor with the majority of modern traits.

    I really want to understand the philosophy to this idea of yours. Why do you think mixing DNA from a number of proto-humans would even give us homo-sapien? If those proto humans had the necessary building blocks in their DNA, probably they would have been equally intelligent with our Sapiens ancestors. How do you mix several dumber population groups to get a single very smart population group?

    What's the logic here?

    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If I'm understanding you right, Gonzalez, you are pointing out that different ethnic groups diverge further from each other than the neanderthal population diverges from itself? But that's hardly fair since the neanderthal population wasn't spread out over as wide an area, and never grew to the same size as human population ultimately did.

    Those population groups appear to diverge due to strongly different environmental selections. Dark skin from Africa, which is really hot. Lighter pigments further up North. ..... etc. Also there's the matter of a larger population possibly giving rise to more mutations per generation.

    You're digging up some really good links, but they don't appear to give support to your hypothesis of admixture being the source of Sapiens. They clearly show there was some admixture, but not in the volume you're suggesting so as to obviate the need for a main group to self-evolve from the common ancestor with the majority of modern traits.

    I really want to understand the philosophy to this idea of yours. Why do you think mixing DNA from a number of proto-humans would even give us homo-sapien? If those proto humans had the necessary building blocks in their DNA, probably they would have been equally intelligent with our Sapiens ancestors. How do you mix several dumber population groups to get a single very smart population group?

    What's the logic here?

    In my last two posts we are not talking/writing about neandertals from 40-60 kya being compared to neandertals 100-200 kya.... The genome of these few neandertals from 40-60 kya, as well as modern humans, were analyzed and compared to the human reference genome in order to calculate coalescent/divergent times.

    What was found is that between 100-250 kya (roughly) these few neandertals, when compared to our lineage and not their own, coalesced more so with with our human reference genome than san africans did/do. This is impossible if one believes in the out of africa theory, the estimated timeline of 300 kya for the population split between the neandertal and amh lines and/or the estimated time given for when modern humans emerged.

    It is one thing to claim that genes flowed from neandertals to AMH some 70-100 kya by way of admixture but, it is another thing all together to find that more modern human lineage specific genes from between 100-250 kya are found within these neandertals than within san africans.

    Think about it for a minute... How is this possible? What caused this? How could this have happen? What could explain this?

    If neandertals and AHM lineages split 300 kya, how is it that a few neandertals from 40-60 kya have/had more specific genes from a people/population (human lineage) from 100 to 250 kya, that are not even their own people, than a people (san africans) that are said to be firmly planted within that people/population/human lineage from 100 to 250 kya?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    In my last two posts we are not talking/writing about neandertals from 40-60 kya being compared to neandertals 100-200 kya.... The genome of these few neandertals from 40-60 kya, as well as modern humans, were analyzed and compared to the human reference genome in order to calculate coalescent/divergent times.

    What was found is that between 100-250 kya (roughly) these few neandertals, when compared to our lineage and not their own, coalesced more so with with our human reference genome than san africans did/do. This is impossible if one believes in the out of africa theory, the estimated timeline of 300 kya for the population split between the neandertal and amh lines and/or the estimated time given for when modern humans emerged.

    It is one thing to claim that genes flowed from neandertals to AMH some 70-100 kya by way of admixture but, it is another thing all together to find that more modern human lineage specific genes from between 100-250 kya are found within these neandertals than within san africans.

    Think about it for a minute... How is this possible? What caused this? How could this have happen? What could explain this?

    If neandertals and AHM lineages split 300 kya, how is it that a few neandertals from 40-60 kya have/had more specific genes from a people/population (human lineage) from 100 to 250 kya, that are not even their own people, than a people (san africans) that are said to be firmly planted within that people/population/human lineage from 100 to 250 kya?
    Are you sure you have the numbers right? You've so far shown a tendency to mingle percentages without keeping track of what they are percentages *of*.

    2% of the whole genome is different from 2% of common inheritance. 2% of base pairs is different from 2% of all matches.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    In my last two posts we are not talking/writing about neandertals from 40-60 kya being compared to neandertals 100-200 kya.... The genome of these few neandertals from 40-60 kya, as well as modern humans, were analyzed and compared to the human reference genome in order to calculate coalescent/divergent times.

    What was found is that between 100-250 kya (roughly) these few neandertals, when compared to our lineage and not their own, coalesced more so with with our human reference genome than san africans did/do. This is impossible if one believes in the out of africa theory, the estimated timeline of 300 kya for the population split between the neandertal and amh lines and/or the estimated time given for when modern humans emerged.

    It is one thing to claim that genes flowed from neandertals to AMH some 70-100 kya by way of admixture but, it is another thing all together to find that more modern human lineage specific genes from between 100-250 kya are found within these neandertals than within san africans.

    Think about it for a minute... How is this possible? What caused this? How could this have happen? What could explain this?

    If neandertals and AHM lineages split 300 kya, how is it that a few neandertals from 40-60 kya have/had more specific genes from a people/population (human lineage) from 100 to 250 kya, that are not even their own people, than a people (san africans) that are said to be firmly planted within that people/population/human lineage from 100 to 250 kya?
    Are you sure you have the numbers right? You've so far shown a tendency to mingle percentages without keeping track of what they are percentages *of*.

    2% of the whole genome is different from 2% of common inheritance. 2% of base pairs is different from 2% of all matches.
    I have been very clear. The tendency has been for a few to not understand or digest what the numbers mean but, that cannot be placed at my feet.

    Less than 2% of san african genetics are made up of specific genes from the human lineage between now and 130-140 kya or so. This is the entire genome, every gene... The 2% would not be a problem if it was not for the fact the few neandertal genomes recovered show that these neandertals have over 2% of these specific genes from the human lineage within the same exact time period.

    How did these neandertals obtain these specific amh lineage genes? How did they obtain and/or maintain more of these specific genes than the san africans did?

    Today every one of our genes can be traced back to common ancestors. If you can explain why and how it is, according to the out of africa theory, that these neandertals can trace a higher percentage of their genes than san africans can to our amh lineage from the estimated time of our emergence till today, then I would/will be very happy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Any source for this? I hope you'll forgive me if I don't blindly trust your analysis. The more eyes going over the data the better.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Any source for this? I hope you'll forgive me if I don't blindly trust your analysis. The more eyes going over the data the better.
    It is posted above = Green
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I wonder what the significance of this gene counting (or bean counting) actually is. It's been said that 98 percent of our DNA is "junk" DNA, or at least it is DNA which we do not know the purpose for. This means that the really important stuff is contained in only the remaining 2%.

    If we share 96 percent of our DNA with chimps, does that mean we can climb a tree 96 percent as fast as a chimp? Does it mean that a chimp will score 96 percent as well as a human on a language test? No it doesn't. So why attach so much significance to these numbers?
    On average, 99 out of a 100 base pairs will match between us and chimps. This is where the 99% comes from, however, this is not the number or percentage of actual genes. That number/percentage is about 25%.

    Concerning Us and neandertals, on average, 999 out of 1000 base pairs will match between us and neandertals and the actual percentage of genes is about 90% on average. One has to keep in mind that we, modern humans today, can and often do have less that 90% when compared to each other. This is due to the fact that between 90-98%+ of our genes come from a slew of different hominids/animals that were not, and are not, AMH.

    If one uses about 150 thousand years for the emergence of AMH then europeans have more specific amh genes than anyone else, then other eurasians, then neandertals, then san africans.

    i
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Does science have any human fossils where DNA can be extracted that lived at the same time as the Neanderthal's Fossil that shows we share 4%?
    well at the time all the inbreeding wouldn't have yet occurred, it would still be occurring
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    I think my first husband was 100% neanderthal. Luckily our kids took more after me.
    KALSTER and Neverfly like this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Even he claims he is neanderthal.

    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Even he claims he is neanderthal.

    naah - nose not big enough
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Even he claims he is neanderthal.

    naah - nose not big enough
    it used to be, but he had a nose job when he was in his 20's lol
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    I'm 2.6% neanderthal according to 23andMe.com. I'm also .2% African American, guess where ladies... -
    Last edited by mikepotter84; June 24th, 2013 at 02:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    I'm 2.6% neanderthal according to 23andMe.com. I'm also .2% African American, guess where ladies... -
    So you have a freckle?
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    I'm 2.6% neanderthal according to 23andMe.com. I'm also .2% African American, guess where ladies... -
    2.6% is actually alot. Keep in mind that only about 2-8% of modern human dna derives from 0-150/200 thousand years ago. This means that 92-98% of the dna modern humans have comes from non modern humans, and of the 2-8% dna that makes you a modern human, 2.6% of that comes from neandertals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    what happened to the neanderthal population when we (sapiens sapiens) had our evolutionary bottleneck circa 70,000ybp?
    I'm not certain what happened to them at that time. I just know they died out at around 30-40,000 years ago in Spain. I don't believe that they were in danger of extinction at that time (during the bottleneck).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    see post 111........
    new data come out almost daily:

    From the detailed genomes of both Neandertals and Denisovans, Pääbo and Montgomery Slatkin of the University of California, Berkeley, estimated that 17% of the Denisovan DNA was from the local Neandertals. And the comparison revealed another surprise: Four percent of the Denisovan genome comes from yet another, more ancient, human—"something unknown," Pääbo reported. "Getting better coverage and more genomes, you can start to see the networks of interactions in a world long ago," says David Kingsley, an evolutionary biologist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.
    Neandertal DNA | john hawks weblog

    everything we thought we knew was but a whisper on the wind

    neanderthals may have been in south eastern China circa 120,000 years ago(MABA man)
    and eastern asians may have up to 40% more neanderthal dna than europeans
    maasai of africa have neanderthal dna

    There were at least 3(likely4) destinct "neanderthal" types, with the western asian being much more gracile that the later european model. (these were the taller/ more gracile neanderthals previously thought to have not survived the cold bottleneck)

    see:
    http://academia.edu/784038/Dating_the_Transition
    Last edited by sculptor; June 28th, 2013 at 03:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I have loved the study of man
    anthropology, psychology, archaeology
    and come to believe that you cannot study the developement of man without studying climatology
    paleo man lived in paleo climates, and not in text books nor scientific journals.
    Know the climate, flora and fauna, and you may know (pre industrial)man.

    (But, then again, I could be wrong.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    what happened to the neanderthal population when we (sapiens sapiens) had our evolutionary bottleneck circa 70,000ybp?
    I'm not certain what happened to them at that time. I just know they died out at around 30-40,000 years ago in Spain. I don't believe that they were in danger of extinction at that time (during the bottleneck).
    Neanderthals had huge calorie requirements compared to us sapiens. So if we were to starve somewhat, then they would starve a lot.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    (wild guess/question time)
    Maybe, the traits which morphologically identify neanderthal bones as neanderthals were mostly recessive genes?
    There is strong genetic evidence of inbreeding of small populations of neanderthal finds, so the likelyhood of carrying 2 recessives seems much more likely?
    Then interbreeding with other species would diminish the characteristics?
    (genetics ain't my strong suite)
    If you have 4 neanderthal ancestors and 96 sapiens-sapiens out of 100 ancestors, would you end up with 4% neanderthal genes?

    your thoughts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    (wild guess/question time)Maybe, the traits which morphologically identify neanderthal bones as neanderthals were mostly recessive genes?There is strong genetic evidence of inbreeding of small populations of neanderthal finds, so the likelyhood of carrying 2 recessives seems much more likely?Then interbreeding with other species would diminish the characteristics?(genetics ain't my strong suite)If you have 4 neanderthal ancestors and 96 sapiens-sapiens out of 100 ancestors, would you end up with 4% neanderthal genes?your thoughts?
    Inbreeding carelessly or ignorantly will not only cause negative recessive genes to come to the front, it eliminates positive genes. Keep in mind though that inbreeding can also be an extremely positive thing to do.

    If 100% of our dna owed its origin to one hominid then the 4% neandertal dna for modern humans would be roughly equal to one of your great-great grandparents being a full blooded neandertal...... However, modern humans only owe between 2-9% of their dna to hominds over the last 150,000 years or so. Because of this, 4% neandertal dna is roughly equal to one parent or two grandparents being neandertals.
    Last edited by gonzales56; July 1st, 2013 at 01:25 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    I will put it this way.... if you are 4% neandertal then you are likely more neandertal than you are any other hominid that ever existed. It is most likely that no other hominid has contributed that much dna to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I've read that eastern asians have up to 40% more neanderthal dna than do europeans
    and
    that the denesovan had much dna contrubuted from local neanderthals
    and
    that "we all have different neanderthal dna" followed by which, that author claimed that we had enough various neanderthal dna to reconstruct millions of neanderthals(though here, I think he was just playing with numbers)

    alternate to the second above, woul be that denisovans and neanderthals were closely related?

    I wonder about the accurace of some of the above/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. The Neanderthal Predation Theory
    By Vexer in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: January 11th, 2012, 11:21 AM
  2. T Rex and Neanderthal DNA/protein
    By Golkarian in forum Biology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 14th, 2009, 12:43 AM
  3. Neanderthal genome already giving up its secrets
    By gottspieler in forum In the News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 21st, 2009, 08:30 PM
  4. Neanderthal DNA sequenced
    By southern_firestorm in forum Biology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 9th, 2008, 11:51 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 27th, 2008, 09:19 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •