Scientists Stunned by a Neanderthal Hybrid Discovered in a Siberian Cave
Sarah Zhang

Source:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/a-neanderthal-and-a-denisovan-had-a-daughter/567967/

Since then, traces of Denisovan DNA have been found in humans living today in Asia and Melanesia—suggesting that long ago, humans and Denisovans met, had sex, and had children.

The discovery has stunned scientists, but it also has them questioning whether it is so stunning at all. Svante Pääbo, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, recalls sequencing a 40,000-year-old human in Romania, which turned out to have a Neanderthal ancestor just 4 to 6 generations back. Interbreeding is so rare, he thought at the time, that the discovery of such a recent ancestor must just be a fluke. But after sequencing just 6 individuals from the Denisova cave, they have already found a direct hybrid offspring. Maybe it was not so uncommon after all.

~~~~iceman9090



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2020 11:09AM by Tevai.

This is just leftist radical bullshit. 40,000 years? All god's children know that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Jeez. Next thing, you'll come up with some math or science wizardry that is going to say that there is no way that Noah carried two of every species on his ark. Heretic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2020 12:27PM by Tevai.

+stillanon:
I am right handed.

~~~~iceman9090



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2020 12:28PM by Tevai.

For clarity's sake, the hybrid in the Siberian cave was not an HSS-Denisovan mix but a Neanderthal-Denisovan one.

HSS, Neanderthals, and Denisovans all come from the same lineage. Humans split from the lineage earlier, and N and D separated somewhat later. The three groups had differentiated so much that they were at the verge of genetic incompatibility and, like horses and donkeys, barely able to mate but probably bestowed on their issue serious reproductive problems. That fact, along with the tendency of natural selection over time to knock out genetic patterns that confer health problems, are probably the two biggest reasons that humans today only have around 2% Neanderthal DNA and, at most, 4-6% Denisovan DNA.

Europe generally has a lot of Neanderthal DNA (about 1.8%) but Asians have more (about 1.9%, for a statistically significant difference of about 0.1%). Europeans have virtually no Denisovan DNA but most East Asians have a trace and New Guineans, Australian aborigines, and Melanesians have as much as 6%.

All these groups mated multiple times. In fact, the first interaction between HSS and Neanderthal occurred in the Near East between 130,000 and 100,000 YA. In that instance however, it was the Neanderthals that survived and the HSS died out--only to return and fare better around 50,000 YA. How do scientists know about the earlier hybridization? Because Neanderthals carry stretches of DNA that they inherited from HSS.

So yeah, there were at least several different forms of humans in the last 300,000 years and they all slept around--a lot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2020 12:28PM by Tevai.

Tell us a "modern political idea".

Democracy.

Jordan thinks the Athenians got it all wrong when they went modern 2,500 years ago. He assures me that was the first wave of cultural Marxism.

Good thing, too. Cultural Agamemnonism would have been damn near unpronounceable.

The Iliad is an allegory about the Soviet Union and Agamemnon was Stalin.

I bet you didn't know that, BoJ.

I didn't. I mostly knew Agamemnon was the name of a British warship. It's just a fun name to say. So is Bucephalus. Hipatia is just confusing.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good thing, too. Cultural Agamemnonism would have
> been damn near unpronounceable.

Athens lacked universal suffrage, had no votes for women but did have a slave population.

And that's just the tip of Aegean.

Don't you have to get to the Kwik-E-Mart soon? Your shift starts in just a few hours.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't you have to get to the Kwik-E-Mart soon?
> Your shift starts in just a few hours.

I'm always amazed by people who pose as left wing, but look down their noses at the working man. Such hypocrites. They're obviously scared by people who have to work for a living.

(This was never my work.)

I don't look down on working people. I look down on intelligent people who waste their resources and snipe from behind an endless series of redundant monikers.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and no one proves that better than you.

Why do you turn your nose up at people who work in convenience stores? I don't work in one and never have. One of my local ones has to keep a baseball bat under his counter. He was robbed twice in three months. Addicts steal his liquor and cigarettes. At least these people work hard, which is more than can be said of the bureaucrats and recidivists who run our society.

Really? You are that critical of your Canada?

After having my DNA done, I'm one of those with a higher percentage of Neanderthal. I was quite delighted when I found out!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2020 12:29PM by Tevai.

No hominid, no hominid. You're the hominid.

Should I confess my hominid tendencies to my bishop?

According to 23andme, I am 2.8% Neanderthal and 4% Native American, the rest is "European". IOW, a mutt, like most Americans, and Eurasians.
The only "Purebred" Homo Sapiens Sapiens, are Africans. And even Africans are hybrids of our predecessor, Homo Sapiens Idaltu, and one of the 16 other well known species of Hominems they coexisted with over the past 200,000 years, in Africa.
Is the current scientific opinion, which is always evolving.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2020 06:35PM by schrodingerscat.

The 2.8% is wrong. 2.0% is the upper boundary and and the modern humans that come very close to that are in Melanesia, followed by some in northern Siberia.

23andme has stopped publishing percentages due to academic critiques but still produces numbers of Neanderthal mutations, which are also incorrect.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 2.8% is wrong. 2.0% is the upper boundary and
> and the modern humans that come very close to that
> are in Melanesia, followed by some in northern
> Siberia.

I'm looking forward to your next submission to a scientific journal. Peer reviewed of course.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 2.8% is wrong. 2.0% is the upper boundary and
> and the modern humans that come very close to that
> are in Melanesia, followed by some in northern
> Siberia.

I guess the scientific Journal, Science, is wrong in your alternate facts universe too huh?

"The data suggest that between 1 and 4% of the genomes of people in Eurasia are derived from Neandertals." A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710

And "The Scientist:
" Thus, the actual amount of interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans may have been very limited, given that it contributed only 1 to 4% of the genome of present-day non-Africans."

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/neanderthal-dna-in-modern-human-genomes-is-not-silent-66299#reference4

I look forward to you submitting your data to these journals and correcting the scientists who published their data and collecting your Nobel Prize for catching their error!

Scat, don't do this to yourself.


-------------
> I guess the scientific Journal, Science, is wrong
> in your alternate facts universe too huh?
>
> "The data suggest that between 1 and 4% of the
> genomes of people in Eurasia are derived from
> Neandertals." A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal
> Genome
>
> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/71
> 0

That 2010 article has been superseded. The field is evolving rapidly and the measurements are getting a lot more precise.


-------------
> And "The Scientist:
> " Thus, the actual amount of interbreeding between
> Neandertals and modern humans may have been very
> limited, given that it contributed only 1 to 4% of
> the genome of present-day non-Africans."

That sentence is not in the 2019 "The Scientist" article you cited. You inadvertently took it from the above 2010 article, so you are still making your argument from decade-old analysis.

What would be cool, Scat, is if you actually read your 2019 article and followed the sources. You would note, for instance, that perhaps the most important source of information is David Reich at Harvard Medical School. That might have encouraged you to read what Reich and his colleagues have discovered in the last several years--which is where my figures come from.*

Alternatively, you could consult the paper Reich wrote with Sriram Sankararaman and Svante Paabo--two more of your unintentional but very important sources--which explains in part why 23andme is so wide of the mark.** Indeed, it was because of Reich that the company stopped providing the nonsensical Neanderthal DNA statistics that you find so compelling.


--------------
> I look forward to you submitting your data to
> these journals and correcting the scientists who
> published their data and collecting your Nobel
> Prize for catching their error!

No need, Scat. Your sources have already corrected the error you keep repeating.



*David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here." You could start with pages 40 and 57-79


**https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12961



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2020 05:42PM by Lot's Wife.

SCat posted, in rebuttal to the 2% figure used by LW, which besmirched SCat's vaunted 2.8% Neanderthal heritage:

> I guess the scientific Journal,
> Science, is wrong in your alternate
> facts universe too huh?

> "The data suggest that between 1 and
> 4% of the genomes of people in Eurasia
> are derived from Neandert(h)als." A Draft
> Sequence of the Neandert(h)al Genome.

>https://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710

Initially, I didn't pay attention to the lead-in to the figures SCat relies on... "The data suggest..." Note that this is a 2010 publication. And at that time, rather than say, "The data show...", a softer intro was used, which could be mere modesty, or it could be a recognition of, "Hey, this is where we're at right now..." In other words, they may have thought that the jury was still out. But still, SCat found solace there.

Which leads us to SCat's second offering:

> And "The Scientist:

> "Thus, the actual amount of inter-
> breeding between Neandert(h)also
> and modern humans may have been
> very limited, given that it con-
> tributed only 1 to 4% of the
> genome of present-day non-Africans."

> https://www.the-scientist.com/features
> /neanderthal-dna-in-modern-human-genomes
> -is-not-silent-66299#reference4

Now SCat's second reference is less than a year old, Sept. 2019. So that's a pretty scathing finding, in terms of what LW posted! It's a real "GOTCHA!!" And SCat appropriately used the withering riposte, "When are you going to have YOUR findings peer-reviewed and published?!!"

...except...

I ended up copying and pasting the entire article, including the footnotes, into MS Word. I did this because after reading through it once, and then just scanning for the above sentence via a second run-through, I couldn't find it!!

Knowing how sloppy I can be in my elderly decrepitude, I decided to let MS Word's search function do the work for me. So I copied and pasted the entire article, including footnotes, into a Word document.

And then Word let me down! Word couldn't find SCat's quote either! In fact, Word told me that the article did not contain a single "%" sign! The article did use the word 'percent' six times, but not the "%"... "I think this puts SCat's authoritativeness into serious question", I remarked to myself, while giggling at the thought it had ever been an issue.

So SCat... What's up? Where did you get the featured sentence?

But in the interim let us continue...

Regarding the figure used by the ever treacherous LW, "2%", the following sentence DOES appear (in the very first paragraph) in the second article:

"Neanderthals had been living in Eurasia for more than 300 millennia when some human ancestors left Africa some 60,000–70,000 years ago, and according to the 2010 publication, in which researchers compared the Neanderthal draft genome with modern human sequences, about 2 percent of the DNA in the genomes of modern-day people with Eurasian ancestry is Neanderthal in origin."

"...about 2 percent of the DNA in genomes of modern-day people..."

So, in conclusion, a 2010 article supports SCat's contention, and a 2019 article does not. In addition, SCat used a purported quote from the 2019 article that MS Word says is not present, and ignored a sentence that actually supported LW.

Further deponent sayeth not.

Yeah, what he said!

... I await the infamous SCat response: "TLDR"



If he doesn't admit reading it, it never happened.

TLDR