Did Humans and Neanderthals Really Interbreed? The Surprising DNA Evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter GeorgCantor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hey
AI Thread Summary
Recent DNA research has confirmed that modern humans possess 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA, supporting the theory of interbreeding between Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens. This finding has been highlighted as a significant breakthrough in understanding human ancestry. However, there is skepticism regarding the novelty of this evidence compared to previous studies that suggested similar links. Some participants in the discussion question the conclusiveness of the new findings, pointing out that earlier DNA analyses had produced conflicting results. The conversation also touches on the classification of humans, with suggestions to reconsider the nomenclature of Homo sapiens, proposing alternatives that reflect cultural development. The dialogue includes humorous exchanges about the implications of human evolution and the quirks of scientific naming conventions. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the importance of ongoing research in human evolution while also critiquing the scientific community's past interpretations of interbreeding evidence.
GeorgCantor
Messages
496
Reaction score
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. :smile:


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 :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


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.
 


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.
 


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


What other DNA evidence?
 


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.
 


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.
 


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


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.
 


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!

:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #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 :).
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top