Neandertal genes found in all non-African populations

[Foster Zygote]

The point is there IS a huge difference between one person and another - and interbreeding could explain it, no?

No more than phrenology.

 

[randman]

The point I was trying to make is that there's a vast difference in mankind's ability to show compassion.

Charles Manson vs. The Dali Lama?

If we need to pin the lack of compassion to homo sapien, rather than neandertal, so be it. Whatever floats your boat.

The point is there IS a huge difference between one person and another - and interbreeding could explain it, no?

There will always be those on the extreme end of the spectrum, but most people are born with an ability to feel love. Just look at small children and their capacity for love and compassion.

They are also born with an ability to be very selfish and self-absorbed. Once again, just look at small children.

It's the environment, experiences, including the person's own choices that either feed one side or the other. Most evil is not done by psychopaths but by groups of ordinary people that get caught up with the group's ideas and behavior. Just look at the atrocities done in war. The people committing them are generally just like everyone else but placed into a specific situation......in other words, those folks that can't seem to hurt a mouse could, given the right situation, turn into a total monster.

Who knows? Maybe Hitler was once such a tender, artistic soul......He was once an artist. Too bad he didn't stick with that or found something else to do with his life. As a political leader, he became a monster.

On the other hand, Stalin seems like he could have been born a psychopath.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So now there's the question- who invented fire?

Trick question! Fire wasn't invented.












It was stolen from the gods by Prometheus.

 

[NoahFence]

It's the environment, experiences, including the person's own choices that either feed one side or the other.

Agreed....

anyway, it was just a theory - and not mine either! Maybe I'll tell her to check out JREF. She's well read like you folks. Not me, I'm just a printer.....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay, so the virus is out. The parasite idea may still be viable, however.

Parasite gene transfer occurs in plants.

And in humans and our parasites.

Now, to be clear, I haven't read anything that says that parasites have been observed transfering genes between two species; the idea of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis mating is more viable. I'm merely suggesting that it's a possible vector--we know parasites and hosts can transfer genes, and if it's rapid enough I don't see transfer of genes between populations as unreasonable. Perhaps not likely, but there's a lot of species out there, and the two species under consideration are very similar, meaning they likely shared many parasites. My intent was to speculate on an alternative pathway for gene transfer--something that would allow both horizontal transfer AND for the two species to be distinct species by a strict interpretation of the biological species concept.

Sigh. ... No Dinwar, you are still making the same mistake here.

Lateral gene transfer is well known. Viral genes are suspected to have been incorporated into the human genome in the past.

But you are claiming something completely different. You are claiming human genes can be transferred between humans by mechanisms other than sexual intercourse. Not gonna happen, (not counting modern medical techniques like bone marrow transplant).


Think about it. The gene would have to enter the sperm or ovum cells. That might be possible with a viral infection. It doesn't happen with a parasite infestation. And if/when the human genome did incorporate a gene from lateral transfer, it wouldn't be human to human via an intermediate vector.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My wife's been chatting about this for years - her theory was that we interbreeded and this is why some folks can be murderous with zero compassion "savages" - while others couldn't even hurt a mouse without massive guilt.

(before you snicker, she's a Harvard grad with Biological Anthopology)

Not exactly an expert but well read nonetheless. It would go a long way to explaining these traits, no?

Somehow I don't think leukocyte alleles are responsible for aggression. Has she seen any of Goodall's work documenting chimpanzee war and murder? Perhaps she was joking about men acting like Neanderthals?

 

[NoahFence]

I'll ask her....

 

[Belz...]

I predicted and stated that Neanderthal DNA would be found in current human populations; that they shared all the same behaviors of people, etc,.....and of course, the evos there insisted they were a separate species, did not interbreed, etc,.....

That's odd. I've read about the Neaderthal intermixing theory for far longer than a few years.

 

[casebro]

Yes but didn't the Neanderthals also come out of Africa?

So their genes got lost in Africa? Or did they evolve those genes after reaching Persia? Or, maybe they had the 'move north' gene? Hmm, a vitamin D gene defect? Skin color gene?

Have 'we' done a full genome of a neanderthal yet? Just exactly how dissimilar are we? The figure mention above is 9% in common, but it would take lots more than that for both of us to be human.

But personally, I've sure met some 'throw backs' that looked Neander. Bob and his brother, both in the Patton State Mental Hospital for the Criminally Insane last I heard. Parents looked normal.

 

[randman]

Agreed....

anyway, it was just a theory - and not mine either! Maybe I'll tell her to check out JREF. She's well read like you folks. Not me, I'm just a printer.....

no worries.....glad you posted it

 

[randman]

That's odd. I've read about the Neaderthal intermixing theory for far longer than a few years.

Yes, but a few years, maybe it was more like 6-7 years, some studies reputed to show Neanderthals did not leave any DNA and many evos jumped all over that to reassert the old idea they were something other than just people.

They were wrong.

Keep in mind they cooked, buried their dead, played music, and did all the things any tribe of humans do. They were just people with pronounced features, and it is no accident we see remnants of those features where they once lived, in Europe.

If you mix tribes more together, many specific features get washed out. If all Caucasians, for example, married non-Caucasians, it wouldn't take long before Caucasian features such as pale skin became less pronounced or disappeared for the most part altogether.

 

[AcesHigh]

Yes, it would. It supports the case made by anthropologists who argue for the taxonomy "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis".

since africans do not have neandertal genes, they would be simply Homo Sapiens. Thus, africans would be a difference species. That makes no sense.

now, instead of racism, it would be specism.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but a few years, maybe it was more like 6-7 years, some studies reputed to show Neanderthals did not leave any DNA and many evos jumped all over that to reassert the old idea they were something other than just people.

Would you please stop using derogatory words to label your opponents ? Otherwise I might use my own word for theist, again.

 

[randman]

Would you please stop using derogatory words to label your opponents ? Otherwise I might use my own word for theist, again.

What term are you referring to? Evo is used by evolutionist proponents themselves in these debates, at least in many places. It's just short for evolutionist.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Yes, but a few years, maybe it was more like 6-7 years, some studies reputed to show Neanderthals did not leave any DNA and many evos jumped all over that to reassert the old idea they were something other than just people.

Citation, please.

The studies I've read (over 10 years ago, and some were pretty old) lacked any way to study DNA in fossils, but generally did not dismiss entirely the possibility that we (Cro-Magnons) interbred with Neandertals. (please note spelling, randman) The idea was untestable with technology of the time, thus was not eligible to become an actual theory.

Keep in mind they cooked, buried their dead, played music, and did all the things any tribe of humans do.

True. The one thing they apparently lacked was the capacity for complex abstract thought. The Lascaux Cave paintings were by Cro-Magnons.

They were just people with pronounced features, and it is no accident we see remnants of those features where they once lived, in Europe.

Another fun thing for you to Google: Occipital bun. More than just a "pronounced feature," it's a pretty distinct morphological feature/genetic marker. Present in populations outside of Europe, BTW. The wiki on this item isn't bad. Shallow, but not wrong.

If you mix tribes more together, many specific features get washed out. If all Caucasians, for example, married non-Caucasians, it wouldn't take long before Caucasian features such as pale skin became less pronounced or disappeared for the most part altogether.

Do you now or have you ever had a tail?

 

[Halfcentaur]

There will always be those on the extreme end of the spectrum, but most people are born with an ability to feel love. Just look at small children and their capacity for love and compassion.

They are also born with an ability to be very selfish and self-absorbed. Once again, just look at small children.

It's the environment, experiences, including the person's own choices that either feed one side or the other. Most evil is not done by psychopaths but by groups of ordinary people that get caught up with the group's ideas and behavior. Just look at the atrocities done in war. The people committing them are generally just like everyone else but placed into a specific situation......in other words, those folks that can't seem to hurt a mouse could, given the right situation, turn into a total monster.

Who knows? Maybe Hitler was once such a tender, artistic soul......He was once an artist. Too bad he didn't stick with that or found something else to do with his life. As a political leader, he became a monster.

On the other hand, Stalin seems like he could have been born a psychopath.

Small children don't start showing empathy and compassion until they reach a certain point in their cognitive development. There are specific regions in the brain concerned with these behaviors, and some people are simply without the physiological means of experiencing empathy the way we "normal" people do.
Then there are millions of scenarios where any one of us could make a simple wrong choice or indulgence that ends with a domino effect that "normal" people would consider still evil. It's not usually a black a white issue at all, unless you actually believe good and evil exists.

 

[randman]

Apollo, I don't want to take the time to rehash an old debate but it wasn't that long ago, evolutionists were saying Neanderthals were not a subspecies and did not mate with humans. Here is an article on that for example from 2008.

Neanderthals Didn't Mate With Modern Humans, Study Says
Ker Than
for National Geographic News
August 12, 2008
Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans likely did not interbreed, according to a new DNA study.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080812-neandertal-dna.html

Also, there is no evidence Neanderthals lacked the capacity for abstract thought.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Apollo, I don't want to take the time to rehash an old debate but it wasn't that long ago, evolutionists were saying Neanderthals were not a subspecies and did not mate with humans. Here is an article on that for example from 2008.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080812-neandertal-dna.html

You seem to think there's a monolithic binary dichotomy between the interbreeding vs. noninterbreeding question, based on one study of one femur written up in a non-specialist publication. The reason the study was done in the first place is that the question wasn't closed.

Science doesn't close the door to anything. That's not how it works. EVERYTHING is still subject to falsification based on new data.

Also, there is no evidence Neanderthals lacked the capacity for abstract thought.

This statement, combined with your continual use of the layman's spelling, tells me all I need to know about your level of knowledge and research on this topic.

The Mousterian toolkit remained largely unchanged for 160,000 years. The complexity of toolkit exploded 40,000 years ago with the arrival of "anatomically modern humans."

A quick guide to some stone tools for your amusement and edification:
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/stones.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's odd. I've read about the Neaderthal intermixing theory for far longer than a few years.

The first Neanderthal DNA that was sequenced indicated no modern human mixing. But when they sequenced the whole genome, they found some mixing. That was a few years ago.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes but didn't the Neanderthals also come out of Africa?

So their genes got lost in Africa? Or did they evolve those genes after reaching Persia? Or, maybe they had the 'move north' gene? Hmm, a vitamin D gene defect? Skin color gene?

Have 'we' done a full genome of a neanderthal yet? Just exactly how dissimilar are we? The figure mention above is 9% in common, but it would take lots more than that for both of us to be human.

But personally, I've sure met some 'throw backs' that looked Neander. Bob and his brother, both in the Patton State Mental Hospital for the Criminally Insane last I heard. Parents looked normal.

The way it works isn't what you are picturing. We have most of our genome in common with Neanderthals, just as we also are closely related to the great apes.

But to determine migration and intermixing, you look for specific mutations. Then you look up and down the line of descent. When a specific mutation occurs, you find it in the offspring but not in the ancestors. That's what is being compared here, not the whole genome.