Turns out all of us, including Africans, interbred with Neanderthals, not just non-Africans.
Apparently after humans went to Europe and mated with Neanderthals, they came back to Africa and interbred with Africans
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/africa/africa-neanderthal-dna-scn/index.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2020 03:49AM by schrodingerscat.

Ooops, Religion does not admit they've been wrong for thousands of years.

Science is the never ending quest to find answers that are less wrong than the answers we already have.

Religion is the never ending quest to stick with answers that have been proven wrong for centuries.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ooops, Religion does not admit they've been wrong
> for thousands of years.


If ever. The world is still apparently about 7,000 years old according to my religious friends.

Edit: This is why I trust science and not religion. Science adjusts its thinking when necessary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2020 09:33AM by Greyfort.

The earth is still a baby then compared to other planets. Cute little guy.

Another one!!

What have we hopefully helped create!!!

It's not so much that they were wrong for ten years as they didn't have an evidence that humans had interbred with Neanderthals prior to about 80K years ago, and there didn't appear to be any Neanderthal DNA in African populations.

Now we are better at sequencing DNA, both human and Neanderthal. Now it looks like there was a much earlier human migration out of Africa, about 200K years ago, and some of those people returned to Africa and brought Neaderthal DNA with them.

Pushing the outmigration date back to 200,000 years ago was what caught my eye. Not that the Adam story needed another nail in the coffin, so to speak.

Yeah, rather than, "Oops, we were wrong," they're more likely to say, "Yay, more data!"

Can we now put aside the canard that Neanderthal admixture in Europe produced the Caucasian “race” while Denisovan genes produced the Asian “race?”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2020 01:13AM by Lot's Wife.

Good luck with that one, The scientific community will doggedly defend their pet theories out of ego and funding patronage while the layfolk of the internet are convinced that people like me with Rh- blood type are alien hybrids. Data-schmata.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2020 04:11AM by ptbarnum.

PTB,

One of SC's hobby horses is the idea that race is a real thing, that it has a biological basis. That is of course nonsense. There is vastly more genetic difference between different African peoples than between Africans and Europeans, or between Europeans and Asians, or between Asians and Africans, for the simple reason that humans originated in Africa and had much more time there to evolve than did the small splinter groups that moved out of Africa relatively recently. Any honest conception of "race," therefore, would have to put six or seven races in Africa and perhaps a footnote for the tiny offshoots that populated the rest of the world.

SC has argued many times that the reason for the different "races" is that Europeans are Africans with a dash of Neanderthal genes; and that East Asians are Africans with Denisovan genes. That assertion is false, however, because there is no boundary between the degree of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA among peoples who are Europeans and Asians; rather the distribution exists on a gradient.

But most important, this study, which SC himself brought here, now shows that Africans (and hence Asians) have Neanderthal DNA. That basically torpedoes the idea that Neanderthals explain the genetic differences between the various "races." From his response immediately below, it is evident that he does not understand this; for the article he cites supports my conclusion rather than his.

In short, if Africans have Neanderthal DNA, that DNA cannot be what differentiates Europeans and Africans. The notion of race is as carious as a troglodyte's teeth.

I totally did not know any of that, LW, so thanks for the explanation of the background debate.

I've just noticed, at least on the internet, that out of all the factors that combine to form the culture around human evolutionary theory, the actual data seems to come in second to special interest in the academic community. My relative who teaches college physics says it's the same feisty political scene in his discipline, but he is of the opinion that EvoBio is probably worse.

Meanwhile there seems to be a disturbing tide of willful ignorance rising in the general population. Anti-vax, Ms. Paltrow's aptly named pseudoscientific pile of "Goop", flat earth, and neo-eugenics. Sweet Darwin, don't let my MIL hear the whole Rh- alien thing or I'll never hear the end of it from her brood of TBM hens. I just have some Basque heritage, but try explaining that to woo lovers who already don't like me a lot.

Race is an illusion that ignores the cooperative, melting pot adaptability of human culture...and/or it's downside, war, slave trafficking and reproduction with captives. Trying to make modern distinctions based on ancient cross-hominin gene exchange is like poking around in your canned chicken noodle soup to determine individual chickens.

ptbarnum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trying to make modern
> distinctions based on ancient cross-hominin gene
> exchange is like poking around in your canned
> chicken noodle soup to determine individual
> chickens.

Fantastic analogy!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can we now put aside the canard that Neanderthal
> admixture in Europe produced the Caucasian
> “race” while Denisovan genes produced the
> Asian “race?”
Ask me again in 10yrs.
I still need to hear from Paabo Svante, who mapped the Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.
Apparently word of this new data hasn't convinced every science writer. .

https://www.sapiens.org/evolution/hominin-species-neanderthals/?fbclid=IwAR3SzwElD2vahZoV2lGX4A-eCv2Ti_tlsCxI6Ei7-r2rqZZerMb3phX4gUE

>>I still need to hear from Paabo Svante...

Who's Paabo Svante?

Do you mean Svante Pääbo?

#crickets

"A Neanderthal Perspective on Human Origins with Svante Pääbo" (2018)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1R8yrEGAgw

Dr. Pääbo tells a story on himself where he said, in 1999, "We would never have a 'nuclear genome' from a Neanderthal; it's too degraded; it's too modified, and it can't be done." He offers that as a caveat about the danger of making negative predictions,,,

His example of how science is self-correcting:

"We have [now] arrived at very high quality Neanderthal genomes."

As I understand the current consensus, Neanderthal sequences are found in Africa, but they are the result of a 'back migration' from Eurasia.

An overview of Neanderthal culture: "Neanderthal technology was homogeneous because it changed so slowly."

(Edited to correct typo)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2020 07:25AM by SL Cabbie.

SC, this article supports my position and not yours.


----------------
1) East Asians have almost as much Neanderthal DNA as Caucasians:

"The pair then analyzed the distribution of Neanderthal DNA in the genomes of about 400 contemporary East Asians and Europeans, people whose ancestors have lived in these regions for a long time. This data came from the 1000 Genomes Project, an international collaboration to catalogue human genetic variation.

. . .

Schraiber and Villanea found fragments of Neanderthal ancestry: about 1.5 percent in each individual and 1.7 percent among people in East Asia specifically. Fabrizio Mafessoni, an evolutionary geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, reviewed Schraiber and Villanea’s findings and argued that the proportion of Neanderthal fragments among modern humans was a bit higher than would be expected if there had only been one episode in which these two populations mated.

“The intuitive explanation,” Schraiber says, “is that there were multiple episodes of interbreeding and that [populations in East Asia] interbred more.”


---------------
2) There was so much intermixing of Neanderthal, Denisovan, and HSS genes that it is nonsensical to treat them as separate lineages:

"Their data showed that—given the distribution of Neanderthal DNA in various living human groups—Neanderthals interbred with Denisovans in East Asia, creating the Neanderthal-Denisovan population, and their hybrid descendants did the deed with modern humans before their arrival in Australia some 60,000 years ago.

That evidence for “admixing” between Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans, Bertranpetit says, indicates “that all of these populations belong to a single lineage.”


Taken together, these studies strengthen the case that H. sapiens-Neanderthal pairings occurred and that such mating was by no means unusual. Rather, H. sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and their hybrids all interbred (hinting, yes, that all three were the same species). And that mixing may have occurred as early as some of the first forays of modern human ancestors out of Africa.


-----------------
3) HSS, Denisovans and Neanderthals were in fact exchanging DNA for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years. There has never been any "border" between the groups:

“For hundreds of thousands of years, modern humans as well as archaic humans, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, have been … crossing modern-day borders that, of course, were not existing in the past and multiple times admixing and exchanging genetic material,” Posth says. “This was not the exception but was the norm.”


-----------------
This article states clearly that there is no genetic basis for your concept of race. Africans have Neanderthal DNA; East Asians have Neanderthal DNA; and Europeans have Neanderthal DNA. In many cases, moreover, the percentages are quite similar. There is accordingly no basis for stating that Neanderthal DNA separates Europeans from other hominid groups.

This just shows how little we actually know and how sloppy our science has been and is.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/30/neanderthal-genes-found-for-first-time-in-african-populations?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3akFRSjHBhf_aNpGKgJYWusgaDnGTvMmlNqAqLHgU2hpwsCj9LekZ-lgE#Echobox=1580406244

This new study now indicates Eurasians have, on average, 1% Neanderthal DNA and Africans have, on average, 0.3%. When over the past decade geneticists like Svante Pääbo and his colleagues at Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology determined it 3% Neanderthal DNA in Eurasians and none in Africans.
I'll wait to hear their reaction to this latest study.
But even if they agree, and explain how they had such a significant math error in their earlier studies, there's still 333% more Neanderthal DNA in Eurasians than there is in Africans.
That significant difference might still contribute to obvious genetic differences between races.

Here you go: Plank Institute on the new DNA analysis.

What they say is that the level of Neanderthal DNA in Europeans and Asians is virtually identical at 2%--well, Asians in fact have slightly more Neanderthal genes than Europeans--meaning that you can no longer assert that the difference between Europeans and Asians stems from European's monopoly over Neanderthal DNA. There is accordingly no biological "racial" distinction between Asians and Europeans.

Plank researchers say something even more damaging to your position. For the evidence shows both that Neanderthal genes were introduced into Africa by European migrants but also that much of what qualifies as "Neanderthal DNA" is in fact HSS DNA from Africa and/or Europe that humans introduced into Neanderthal populations and was subsequently reintroduced from Neanderthals into HSS in Europe, Asia and Africa. So a lot of what you have been using to show a difference between Africans and Europeans is in fact not Neanderthal at all. It is HSS that spread into Neanderthals and thence back into HSS populations. Counting that as Neanderthal genetics is a mistake: it is HSS and, if subtracted from what you are calling Neanderthal DNA, indicates that "pure" Neanderthal DNA in humans is substantially lower than the 2% you embrace.

If you can't clearly separate what is Neanderthal from what is HSS, there is no basis for asserting some construct like "race" which presumes definite lines between groups. The genetic history of humanity is so mixed up that there is no way you can ascribe today's physical differences to individual hominid groups.

That's what the Planck Institute, your gold standard, says.


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/africans-carry-surprising-amount-neanderthal-dna

The last ten years have certainly convinced me that the caveman is alive and well in America.

Well put, Don.

There is only one race -- the human race.

A rat race is also a good race.

#more crickets

    Look at you getting all philosophical !!!

What is left out of this whole discussion is the fact that Neanderthals existed in Africa prior to migrating to Europe 300,000 years ago. And there were Homo Sapiens in Africa before HSS evolved 200,000 years ago, like our predecessor, Homo Sapiens Idaltu. It seems likely that Idaltu interbred with another closely related species of Homo, perhaps Heidelbergensis or Erectus, Neanderthal or Denisovan, to create HSS.

Okay, so those peoples all made genetic contributions to HSS Africans, and hence to HSS Europeans and Asians. That undermines the proposition that Neanderthal and Denisovan contributions created different "races" in Europe and Asia.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, so those peoples all made genetic
> contributions to HSS Africans, and hence to HSS
> Europeans and Asians. That undermines the
> proposition that Neanderthal and Denisovan
> contributions created different "races" in Europe
> and Asia.

Just like there are 34 sub-species of canines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae#Phylogenetic_relationships
(wolves, coyotes, jackals, foxes, domestic dogs) that can all interbreed, there are 16 different sub species of Humans (Homos) that spread out from Africa, kind of like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#/media/File:Homo_sapiens_lineage.svg

We now know that all Anatomically Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) are mixed with Homo Sapiens Idaltu (our predecessor in Africa) Neanderthals (Our Middle Eastern/European predecessor) and Denisovans (Our Eastern European/Asian predecessor).
Now we know, We're all mutts. There's no such thing as a "Pure Bred Homo Sapiens Sapiens"
The closest thing there is is Africans, who are 99.7% Homo Sapiens Sapiens and 0.3% Neanderthal, which might be enough to distinguish them from Homo Sapiens Idaltu, our predecessor, the First Wise Man, or Elder, Adam.
Mitochondrial Eve was probably at least 3 different females, maybe an Idaltu and a Neanderthal or
a Denisovan and a Neanderthal or
Heidelbergensis and Erectus or
Nadeli and Idaltu.
Either way, they were African, at least 200,000 years ago and maybe longer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2020 08:30PM by schrodingerscat.

Yes, so your previously stated notion that Neantherthal DNA only existed in Caucasian peoples, Denisovan genes only existed in East Asians, and Africans were bereft of both Neanderthal and Denisovan genetics; and that these differences accounted for the three different races was incorrect.

Would you acknowledge that? It's a critically important point because it proves that "race" is sociological rather than a biological construct.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, so your previously stated notion that
> Neantherthal DNA only existed in Caucasian
> peoples, Denisovan genes only existed in East
> Asians, and Africans were bereft of both
> Neanderthal and Denisovan genetics; and that these
> differences accounted for the three different
> races was incorrect.
>
> Would you acknowledge that? It's a critically
> important point because it proves that "race" is
> sociological rather than a biological construct.

If you're willing to admit that the concept of different sub-rescues or breeds of dogs is a human construct and has nothing to do with genetics.
It's the same concept.
There are different breeds of huamns,
just like there are different breeds of dogs, cats, cows, horses, chickens, any species.

Why would I have to admit that different peoples have different characteristics? I never denied that fact, which is perfectly obvious.

The only disagreement you and I have had is about "races," which you asserted are substantive biological constructs informed by Neanderthals and Denisovans. That is, and always has been, nonsense.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would I have to admit that different peoples
> have different characteristics? I never denied
> that fact, which is perfectly obvious.
>
> The only disagreement you and I have had is about
> "races," which you asserted are substantive
> biological constructs informed by Neanderthals and
> Denisovans. That is, and always has been,
> nonsense.

That's like saying continents are human constructs.
There's no such thing as continents, since they're all connected underneath the oceans and Europe and Asia are all just one big land mass,so one continent.

Or there's no such thing as wolves and foxes and coyotes, that's just a human construct. They're all just dogs, same race, the dog race.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day--and I've been reading "random."

No one says genes don't influence behavior and characteristics. No one says that East Asians and Europeans and Africans look different due to their genes.

But virtually all scientists, including the ones you worship, agree that there is no such thing as race. Moreover, no serious scientist thinks that "race," if it did exist, could possibly be based on contributions from Neanderthals or Denisovans. Those are your little whimsies, which is why you cannot produce a single reputable expert who endorses your views on race and on the contributions from N and D.

I'm not sure why you are trying even now to defend your position on those ideas since you have just produced not one, but two, articles proving that you are wrong.

Did you read them? Did you comprehend them?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2020 01:34AM by Lot's Wife.

You know that phrase/instruction, 'make of it what you will'?

KoriCat has taken it completely to heart. Facts mean nothing compared to feelings. Why else would the emotion "certainty" exist?


There was a time when a majority of us were "certain" the mormon church was "true". You'd think KoriCat would keep that in mind.

I was going to say: accepting our feelings as truth even when that requires ignoring experts and twisting facts is the essence of cult behavior. A lot of ex-Mos are not as "ex" as they would like to believe.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/genetic-data-half-million-brits-reveal-ongoing-evolution-and-neanderthal-legacy

But a few years ago, Kelso and her colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, turned to a new tool—the UK Biobank (UKB), a large database that holds genetic and health records for half a million British volunteers. The researchers analyzed data from 112,338 of those Britons—enough that "we could actually look and say: ‘We see a Neanderthal version of the gene and we can measure its effect on phenotype in many people—how often they get sunburned, what color their hair is, and what color their eyes are,’" Kelso says. They found Neanderthal variants that boost the odds that a person smokes, is an evening person rather than a morning person, and is prone to sunburn and depression.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005121106.htm

Kelso notes that the traits influenced by Neanderthal DNA, including skin and hair pigmentation, mood, and sleeping patterns are all linked to sunlight exposure. When modern humans arrived in Eurasia about 100,000 years ago, Neanderthals had already lived there for thousands of years. They were likely well adapted to lower and more variable levels of ultraviolet radiation from the sun than the new human arrivals from Africa were accustomed to.

"Skin and hair color, circadian rhythms and mood are all influenced by light exposure," the researchers wrote. "We speculate that their identification in our analysis suggests that sun exposure may have shaped Neanderthal phenotypes and that gene flow into modern humans continues to contribute to variation in these traits today."

So what are you saying?

Race is a biologically sound concept?

DNA determines characteristics, like skin, eye and hair color, type of hair and size and a lot of other genetic predispositions.
The (current) DNA study we are discussing indicates Eurasians have, on average, 333% more Neanderthal DNA than Africans. That is a huge genetic difference, considering we are supposedly 99.9% genetically identical.
Why would humans be any different from any other species?
If a Chihuahua can interbreed with a St. Bernard to create a St. Chihuahua, why would it be any different with different breeds (races) of humans? I mean, obviously we were closely related enough to Neanderthals and Denisovans to interbreed with them and produce fertile offspring.

So you ARE saying that "breeds (races)" are a biologically meaningful concept.

Given that you love to quote scientists in support of your views, can you find a credible researcher who agrees with what you just wrote?

If not, why aren't they as intelligent as you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2020 08:47PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you ARE saying that "breeds (races)" are a
> biologically meaningful concept.
>
> Given that you love to quote scientists in support
> of your views, can you find a credible researcher
> who agrees with what you just wrote?
>
> If not, why aren't they as intelligent as you?

Are breeds of dogs (or cats. Chickens, sheep, pigs, horses, cows....) biologically meaningful concepts?
How is the concept of different (biologically distinct, testable, breeds different from the concept of distinct human, genetically determined, races?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2020 09:19PM by schrodingerscat.

Yes. A "breed" is a subset of a species that is intentionally cultivated to emphasize a set of physical characteristics. Those characteristics are specifically listed in books on the subject. Eliminate human breeders and breeds will within several generations disappear into the original species. So the concept of breed is meaningful, not as a natural phenomenon but as the product of transitory and arbitrary human manipulation--like the various forms of roses.

There is no meaningful list of characteristics that separate different groups of people into "races." Rather, human characteristics and the underlying genes are distributed along continua, and any attempts to delineate different subgroups is entirely arbitrary. Nor is there, at least since the Nazi era, any systematic attempt by humans to define and engineer specific "breeds," in your terms.

So I repeat: rather than attempt to persuade me that biologists who say race is meaningless are wrong, just produce a few statements by such people in support of your view. I cannot see how you, who find famous people's statements so compelling in other contexts, cannot adduce examples in support of your proposition here.

You do realize there are wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos and jackals, right?
The existed before us.
We had nothing to do with them breeding.
They can interbreed, because they are all dogs.
They just choose to breed with their own kind, or sub-species, or type.
Cats, Ducks, pigs, pheasant, same thing. Lots of different breeds can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Humans are not unique in that regard.
We are all hybrids.

This post is entirely irrelevant.

We are discussing the concept of race. Can you name one credible scientist who agrees with you that the term "race" is biologically meaningful?

I'd like to see a few citations but would settle for just one.

Just one.

Some people seem to be looking for science to hit a specific target, usually in support of a thesis or theses they support.

And certainly, science, as it is practiced in the commercial laboratories of multi-billion dollar businesses and religions, is for the most part targeted science.

And basically commerce and religion just want to make money, but religion as the added incentive of wanting to be 'right'.

Sugar is GOOD!

Fat is BAD!

I’m right ‘cause Science says so!

Don’t believe me? Well, you’re just dumb.

Human, targeted

This is why most churches teach fidelity and NO pre-marital sex. Started as the early Prophets taught it to keep people from visiting Neanderthal whore houses.

Yeah, I've seen old 8mm B&W film! Those ladies we're something else!

Religious fanatics only admit to being right.
And racists can't admit they aren't special.

Did Neanderthals evolve from crickets????

I thought the origin on mankind was Michael AKA Adam bending Eve over a pile of rocks in what is now northwest Missouri and giving her the fruit of his loins. Then the offspring had incest with each other and it went on and on and on. Then Noah built the big boat and sailed to who knows where. Maybe Africa. Maybe Noah screwed the animals on the ark and that's why we look so different from each other.

If the animals have different color eyes, it's the Neanderthals' fault.

The nice thing about science is that it is open to revision based on new evidence.