Did Humans and Neanderthals Really Interbreed? The Surprising DNA Evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter GeorgCantor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hey
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans, focusing on recent DNA findings and their implications. Participants explore the validity and significance of this evidence in the context of previous studies and classifications of human species.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants share a link to a study suggesting that most humans have 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA, viewing it as an important discovery.
  • Others question how this new evidence is more convincing than previous DNA studies that also indicated a link between Neanderthals and modern humans.
  • There are discussions about the classification of humans, with some advocating for a reclassification of Homo sapiens sapiens to reflect cultural development.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the consensus on interbreeding, noting that previous claims were contradicted by DNA evidence.
  • Humor is present in the discussion, with references to Neanderthal behavior and playful comments about human taxonomy.
  • Some participants mention the existence of other species, like Homo floresiensis, in relation to the broader discussion of human evolution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus on the significance of the new DNA evidence compared to earlier studies. There are multiple competing views regarding the implications of interbreeding and the classification of humans.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and interpretations of the DNA evidence, as well as the historical context of previous studies that may have influenced current opinions.

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:
Biology 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 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K