Did Humans and Neanderthals Really Interbreed? The Surprising DNA Evidence

  • Thread starter GeorgCantor
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Hey
In summary, this new DNA evidence suggests that most humans have a little Neanderthal in them, and that this may be why our decendants have developed culture and states.
  • #1
GeorgCantor
496
1
Hey Neanderthals :)

Just thought i'd share:

Neanderthals, Humans Interbred—First Solid DNA Evidence


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/


"The next time you're tempted to call some oaf a Neanderthal, you might want to take a look in the mirror. :rofl:


According to a new DNA study, most humans have a little Neanderthal in them—at least 1 to 4 percent of a person's genetic makeup."




I think this is a fairly important discovery that everybody has been waiting for. Cheers...

neanderthals :rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


How is this evidence more convincing and conclusive than all the other DNA evidence already found exactly?

I've long been in favour of H. s. neanderthalensis by the way, in fact, I am in favour of H. pan in lieu of Pan as a genus, in fact, I am in favour of reclassifying Homo sapiens sapiens as Pan homo cultiuatus.

Homo sapiens sapiens is one of the most ridiculous self-stroking trinominal nomenclatures ever invented. What if our decendants grow even more intelligent, what do you get then? Homo plusapiens? We were the first hominids to develop culture and states which I think is a very significant property, thus we should be called Homo cultiuatus and rather so even Pan homo cultiuatus. There are enough species in one genus that differ a lot more genetically than Humans and Chimps.
 
  • #3


Kajahtava said:
How is this evidence more convincing and conclusive than all the other DNA evidence already found exactly?

I've long been in favour of H. s. neanderthalensis by the way, in fact, I am in favour of H. pan in lieu of Pan as a genus, in fact, I am in favour of reclassifying Homo sapiens sapiens as Pan homo cultiuatus.

Homo sapiens sapiens is one of the most ridiculous self-stroking trinominal nomenclatures ever invented. What if our decendants grow even more intelligent, what do you get then? Homo plusapiens? We were the first hominids to develop culture and states which I think is a very significant property, thus we should be called Homo cultiuatus and rather so even Pan homo cultiuatus. There are enough species in one genus that differ a lot more genetically than Humans and Chimps.

I'm sure homo sapiensn will be chagrined to learn how much of our DNA is mixed in with theirs.

And I'm not surprised to learn about the Neandertal link to us. After all, we have a Zooby and an Ape here at PF.
 
  • #4


Kajahtava said:
How is this evidence more convincing and conclusive than all the other DNA evidence already found exactly?


What other DNA evidence?
 
  • #5


GeorgCantor said:
What other DNA evidence?
There have been countless studies already that showed a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Interbreeding_hypotheses

I think this hypothesis is true by the way, but I just don't see how this new evidence is supposedly more conclusive than the old, which apparently was not conclusive enough yet to sway all biologists.
 
  • #6


Kajahtava said:
There have been countless studies already that showed a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Interbreeding_hypotheses

I think this hypothesis is true by the way, but I just don't see how this new evidence is supposedly more conclusive than the old, which apparently was not conclusive enough yet to sway all biologists.



But you said DNA evidence, not hypothesis. What DNA evidence were you referring to?


I could not find DNA analysis in your link that concluded there was interbreeding.


In fact, in my link it states the opposite:

That's no surprise to anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, whose skeleton-based claims of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding—previously contradicted with DNA evidence—appear to have been vindicated by the new gene study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science.



I was always under the opinion that the consensus was that there wasn't interbreeding or that if there was, it would not be to a detectable level.
 
  • #7


Homo sapiens sapiens is one of the most ridiculous self-stroking trinominal nomenclatures ever invented.
I think bison bison bison is the worst.
 
  • #8


But you said DNA evidence, not hypothesis. What DNA evidence were you referring to?


I could not find DNA analysis in your link that concluded there was interbreeding.


In fact, in my link it states the opposite:

That's no surprise to anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, whose skeleton-based claims of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding—previously contradicted with DNA evidence—appear to have been vindicated by the new gene study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science.



I was always under the opinion that the consensus was that there wasn't interbreeding or that if there was, it would not be to a detectable level.
You seem to be correct, I seemed to have been referring to some things that were later taken back again.

leroyjenkens said:
I think bison bison bison is the worst.
There's also Gorilla gorilla gorilla, that's not self-stroking though.
 
  • #9


I'm not too sure about this. Neanderthals didn't paint the walls of their caves like my kids did. None the less, I decided to let my inner Neanderthal show through. I started by dragging my wife into the bedroom by her hair. This was a mistake. It turns out that she has an inner Neanderthal too and access to a club. No wonder they died out.
 
  • #10


Kajahtava said:
There's also Gorilla gorilla gorilla, that's not self-stroking though.
I always wondered if that was just meant as a warning.

Picture some victorian naturalist in the jungle bent over his notes writing down the name
>Gorilla yells his assistant pointing.
hmm. yes
>Gorilla !
gorilla gorilla, ok got it
>Gorilla ! as his assistant is carried off
gorilla gorilla, gorilla? - well a bit repetitive I suppose,
 
  • #11


Etymology
Ancient Greek Γόριλλαι (Gorillai, “a tribe of hairy women”), described by Hanno the Navigator, a Carthaginian navigator and possible visitor to the area that later became Sierra Leone.

I did not know that.
 
  • #12


I dated a guy that had a definite neanderthal brow ridge, no occipital bun though. He always said it was his Cherokee blood.
 
  • #13


Kajahtava said:
Ancient Greek Γόριλλαι
Odd that the Greeks should have such a concise term for hairy women
 
  • #14


mgb_phys said:
Odd that the Greeks should have such a concise term for hairy women
It was actually the name of a tribe of women, who just happened to be hairy.
 
  • #15


mgb_phys said:
Odd that the Greeks should have such a concise term for hairy women

Or very appropriate!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #16


mgb_phys said:
Odd that the Greeks should have such a concise term for hairy women

I was thinking it more odd that they equated gorillas to hairy women.
 
  • #17


Kajahtava said:
It was actually the name of a tribe of women, who just happened to be hairy.

Did they also pack a whallop when you got fresh with them?
 
  • #18


I once met a man who sincerely believed that some people have elf genes. I always thought that was one of the silliest things I had ever heard, until Homo Floresiensis was discovered.
 
  • #19


What if our decendants grow even more intelligent, what do you get then? Homo plusapiens?
I bet on homo superior.
 
  • #20


haael said:
I bet on homo superior.
Couldn't mutants breed with non-mutants quite easily? Surely it should be H. s. superior then?
 
  • #21


Quit going on and on about the taxology of Humans. It's utter non-sense... give it up already jesus.
 
  • #22


Ivan Seeking said:
I once met a man who sincerely believed that some people have elf genes. I always thought that was one of the silliest things I had ever heard, until Homo Floresiensis was discovered.

LOL. When I heard about this species it made me think more of Bilbo Baggins.
 
  • #23


Couldn't mutants breed with non-mutants quite easily? Surely it should be H. s. superior then?
You're quite optimistic to think that future humans would still be sapiens :).
 

1. Did humans and Neanderthals really interbreed?

Yes, there is evidence that suggests that humans and Neanderthals interbred. Recent studies have shown that modern humans outside of Africa have between 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in their genome, indicating that interbreeding occurred between the two species.

2. How do we know that interbreeding occurred between humans and Neanderthals?

Scientists have analyzed the DNA of ancient human remains and compared it to the DNA of Neanderthal remains. They found similarities in the DNA sequences, indicating that interbreeding occurred between the two species.

3. When did interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals occur?

Interbreeding is believed to have occurred around 50,000-60,000 years ago when humans migrated out of Africa and encountered Neanderthals in Europe and Asia. However, recent studies have also suggested that interbreeding may have occurred earlier, up to 100,000 years ago.

4. Did interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals have any impact on modern humans?

Yes, the interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals may have had some impact on modern humans. Studies have shown that the Neanderthal DNA present in modern humans may have contributed to traits such as skin and hair color, immune system function, and even some diseases.

5. Are there any other species that interbred with humans?

Yes, there is evidence that suggests humans also interbred with another ancient human species called Denisovans. Studies have shown that modern humans outside of Africa also have a small percentage of Denisovan DNA in their genome, indicating interbreeding occurred between these two species as well.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top