Neanderthals

[henry d]

I missed the first one but caught the second. It was very interesting, one amazing fact is that indiginous sub-Saharan Africans are the only true humans, ther rest of us, especially caucasians, are in fact mongrels as we interbred with neanderthals. What I did not understand though, not being a biologist, is they said human DNA and neanderthal DNA are different yet I seem to remember that human-like animals all came from a common ancestor, does that not mean our DNA is the same? Any geneticists out there what to enlighten me? (I tried looking it up but it either baffled me or was the same as the programme)

[Rewulf]

It was fascinating, but many many assumptions about various aspects.
A lot of the time I was scratching my head and thinking, that just doesnt sound right, contradictions ect.

To say human DNA and neanderthal DNA are 'different is like saying your DNA is different to your wifes/partners , of course it is !
It doesnt mean they cant mix and produce hybrids (children) so to say that sub Saharan Africans are pure 'human' and we are hybrids of neanderthals is a peculiar assumption they made.
We are all hybrids !

The common ancestor, be it homo erectus or some other 'undiscovered' species they seem to find every few years, is again a hybrid of other bygone upright walking ape type creatures, who descended from other apes, keep going till you get to single celled organisms ect.

If Eurasian homo sapiens as we know today are the result of interbreeding with neanderthals and 'pure' homo sapiens ie ,like the type found today in sub Saharan Africa, who usually only have around 2-3 % of neanderthal DNA ,should we not look a lot more like modern Africans ?
 

[henry d]

Not really, we are also under recent evolutionary pressure such as farming/urbanisation/industrialisation/differences in selection criteria as well (according to the `tinterweb) and also adaptive changes to the geographical areas we live in. So whiter skin as you progress northwards and the sun is less fierce, and increases of surface to volume ratios in innuits so as to combat loss of heat. I also read somewhere that a 40 000 YO skeleton from Bulgaria (?) had 11% Neanderthal DNA, so they had a neanderthal grand parent 4-5 generations previously, perhaps they looked a little different to both human types?

[Rewulf]

Im not certain how many generations it would take to make a dark skinned person white due to environmental factors, I would have though 10s of 1000s of years ?
The Bulgarian skeleton may well have had a pure neanderthal ancestor 4-5 generations before for 11%, but what percentage were his/her father/ grandfather ect between ?
Like I say, to dilute the gene down to the 2% mentioned ,it would need a constant migration from African 'pure ' homo sapiens to do so in the last 40-50000 years, not impossible, but begs the question of why Eurasians look so different in such a 'relatively ' short space of time .

 

[Hamster]

I don't think they said the sub saharan population were "true" humans, merely that they were the only people without any neanderthal genes. Fascinating stuff. 

[Westward]

Humans were genetically engineered 400,000 years ago to work as slaves mining gold for an alien race called the Annunaki who'd run out of gold on their home planet.

It must be true because I read it on the internet. ?

[ditchman]

go to great yarmouth........they are all up there.......

[henry d]

4 hours ago, Hamster said:

I don't think they said the sub saharan population were "true" humans, merely that they were the only people without any neanderthal genes. Fascinating stuff. 

Say what?

[Hamster]

8 hours ago, henry d said:

Say what?

I don't think they said the sub saharan population were "true" humans, merely that they were the only people without any neanderthal genes.

Should be clear enough unless you have an unusually high percentage of some genes !!!

[krugerandsmith]

14 hours ago, henry d said:

I missed the first one but caught the second. It was very interesting, one amazing fact is that indiginous sub-Saharan Africans are the only true humans, ther rest of us, especially caucasians, are in fact mongrels as we interbred with neanderthals. What I did not understand though, not being a biologist, is they said human DNA and neanderthal DNA are different yet I seem to remember that human-like animals all came from a common ancestor, does that not mean our DNA is the same? Any geneticists out there what to enlighten me? (I tried looking it up but it either baffled me or was the same as the programme)

Apparently humans practically share the same DNA as a ........ Banana

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Hamster said:

I don't think they said the sub saharan population were "true" humans, merely that they were the only people without any neanderthal genes.

Should be clear enough unless you have an unusually high percentage of some genes !!!

Of course they were, Homo habilis was the first "true" human at around 2.8 million years ago and if you don`t mean them and mean H sapiens it would still be true as they are believed to have evolved from H. rhodesiensis about 200 000 years ago and H. Neaderthal were evolved from H.r 500 000 years ago. The reason they were the only ones without neanderthal genes was that they didn`t live in the same geographical area and only when populations started to spread out of Africa was there any cross breeding with neanderthals.

[yod dropper]

If I recall it right a little while back mapping showed that 'we' have genes from 4 species of 'human' in varying amounts which corresponded to broad geographic zones.

[Penelope]

15 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Im not certain how many generations it would take to make a dark skinned person white due to environmental factors, I would have though 10s of 1000s of years ?
The Bulgarian skeleton may well have had a pure neanderthal ancestor 4-5 generations before for 11%, but what percentage were his/her father/ grandfather ect between ?
Like I say, to dilute the gene down to the 2% mentioned ,it would need a constant migration from African 'pure ' homo sapiens to do so in the last 40-50000 years, not impossible, but begs the question of why Eurasians look so different in such a 'relatively ' short space of time .

 

It's my understanding that the reason behind light skin colour is the absorption of sunlight and the production of vitamin D.

[Rewulf]

Just now, Penelope said:

It's my understanding that the reason behind light skin colour is the absorption of sunlight and the production of vitamin D.

It is indeed, but my question was, how many generations would it take for a complete colour change from say a dark black person to become white, or indeed ,vice versa.
Is 50,000 years enough ?
I know there are other physical differences, for example hair, features and fat displacement ect, but they seem easier to evolve than skin colour.
Bear in mind there is no interbreeding in this scenario, just geographical/weather conditions.
If we are to believe that sub Saharan Africans genes are free from neanderthal that is .

[Penelope]

Maybe that drop of Neanderthal blood helped as they were already evolved to cope with a northern climate?

[Rewulf]

Quite possibly, the thinking has always been that neanderthals died out because they were not as adaptable as homo sapiens, even though they were stronger and had larger brains ect.
The 'new' thinking is more along the lines of assimilation, with the neanderthal genes giving Eurasian humans a distinct advantage in that adaptability.

Its all based on a lot of assumptions though, which is not a problem until the scientists involved in the project, tend to put theory forward as fact.
Give it 10 years and Im sure theyll have a new set of assumptions and theories ?

 

15 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Maybe that drop of Neanderthal blood helped as they were already evolved to cope with a northern climate?

[Penelope]

14 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Quite possibly, the thinking has always been that neanderthals died out because they were not as adaptable as homo sapiens, even though they were stronger and had larger brains ect.
The 'new' thinking is more along the lines of assimilation, with the neanderthal genes giving Eurasian humans a distinct advantage in that adaptability.

Its all based on a lot of assumptions though, which is not a problem until the scientists involved in the project, tend to put theory forward as fact.
Give it 10 years and Im sure theyll have a new set of assumptions and theories ?

 

It's always the latest best guess.

[old'un]

It was fascinating, but as mentioned above, many, many assumptions, I often wonder just how accurate facial reconstruction is?

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, old'un said:

It was fascinating, but as mentioned above, many, many assumptions, I often wonder just how accurate facial reconstruction is?

Good point, they seem pretty confident with it, but the way they depicted them in the program is somewhat different to the image of neanderthals that has been presented in the past.
Its like they wanted to make them look more ' homo sapien' and less thuggish ,knuckle dragger, itself an assumption that has always been put forward with no real evidence.

[Hamster]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

It is indeed, but my question was, how many generations would it take for a complete colour change from say a dark black person to become white, or indeed ,vice versa.
Is 50,000 years enough ?
I know there are other physical differences, for example hair, features and fat displacement ect, but they seem easier to evolve than skin colour.
Bear in mind there is no interbreeding in this scenario, just geographical/weather conditions.
If we are to believe that sub Saharan Africans genes are free from neanderthal that is .

When it comes to something like that I don't think a complete transformation is likely without some form of mutations or interbreeding with other already adapted populations. Apparently it is possible for black people to have white babies but not vice versa ? I think what's likely to have happened is that any slight or major mutation that occurred when early man was travelling went on to "outperform" the others and however slow that success would ultimately multiply and replace the original. 

What I find amazing is how skin colour can vary between siblings in certain countries, my own included. It's entirely possible to have one being several shades darker or lighter although it tends to be the women who are lighter because they don't spend all their young days under a hot sun. 

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, Hamster said:

When it comes to something like that I don't think a complete transformation is likely without some form of mutations or interbreeding with other already adapted populations. Apparently it is possible for black people to have white babies but not vice versa ? I think what's likely to have happened is that any slight or major mutation that occurred when early man was travelling went on to "outperform" the others and however slow that success would ultimately multiply and replace the original. 

What I find amazing is how skin colour can vary between siblings in certain countries, my own included. It's entirely possible to have one being several shades darker or lighter although it tends to be the women who are lighter because they don't spend all their young days under a hot sun. 

This is exactly my point.
They are saying the southern Africans are without neanderthal DNA , but are obviously sharing the common ancestor (who supposedly came out of Africa) 
But if the only difference between homo sapiens (African) and the neanderthals (Eurasian) was geographic, was that enough time to produce an evolved species?
Its like they are implying 2 completely sets of evolved humans in 2 areas of the world, then at some point around 100,000 years ago ,they met, clashed or interbred, maybe both ?
With the neanderthal race absorbed or in some studies ,killed off, the lack of ,or scarcity of the neanderthal genome shows us to be the dominant species apparently ?
Bear in mind the earth was essentially the same geography wise then so its not like there were physical barriers to prevent intermingling.

It might sound confusing, but essentially if modern southern Africans (before white exploration took off 500 years ago) who are black in skin colour, are the species that moved north and took over the lands and assimilated the neanderthals, should we not all be black ?
If we are only 2-3 % neanderthal , where did blondes and redheads, chinese and turkic peoples come from ?
Is it simply neanderthals genes are stronger ?
If so ,how come theres only a small amount left ?

[Hamster]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

This is exactly my point.
They are saying the southern Africans are without neanderthal DNA , but are obviously sharing the common ancestor (who supposedly came out of Africa) 
But if the only difference between homo sapiens (African) and the neanderthals (Eurasian) was geographic, was that enough time to produce an evolved species?
Its like they are implying 2 completely sets of evolved humans in 2 areas of the world, then at some point around 100,000 years ago ,they met, clashed or interbred, maybe both ?
With the neanderthal race absorbed or in some studies ,killed off, the lack of ,or scarcity of the neanderthal genome shows us to be the dominant species apparently ?
Bear in mind the earth was essentially the same geography wise then so its not like there were physical barriers to prevent intermingling.

It might sound confusing, but essentially if modern southern Africans (before white exploration took off 500 years ago) who are black in skin colour, are the species that moved north and took over the lands and assimilated the neanderthals, should we not all be black ?
If we are only 2-3 % neanderthal , where did blondes and redheads, chinese and turkic peoples come from ?
Is it simply neanderthals genes are stronger ?
If so ,how come theres only a small amount left ?

No because mutations occur all the time (their purpose is in fact to explore and fill voids), some blond genes as well as redheads exist within much of the brown world for example but they fail to take a proper foothold because other colours are more adapted to their particular environment. All races evolve through capitalising on an initial mutation, I believe Darwin thought much the same about the animal kingdom. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Hamster

[Rewulf]

13 minutes ago, Hamster said:

No because mutations occur all the time (their purpose is in fact to explore and fill voids), some blond genes as well as redheads exist within much of the brown world for example but they fail to take a proper foothold because other colours are more adapted to their particular environment. All races evolve through capitalising on an initial mutation, I believe Darwin thought much the same about the animal kingdom. 

Cant disagree with that, but it doesnt really explain why there is so little of their DNA in us.
This helps a bit, but also says that neanderthals originated in Africa ?

https://www.livescience.com/28036-neanderthals-facts-about-our-extinct-human-relatives.html

[yod dropper]

Can't find all the detail but another group 'we' bred with or we became as a result of breeding with were the Denisovans from Siberia.

[39TDS]

6 hours ago, Rewulf said:

how many generations would it take for a complete colour change from say a dark black person to become white

Michael Jackson managed it in one generation.

It surprises me that they had always classed Neanderthals as a bit dim and now they are saying they were brighter. Also surprises me they haven't suggested slavery or even sex slaves as an explanation to integration.