Neanderthals.............the eyes have it !!!

[blacktimberwolf]

Boffins believe they have found the reason why Neanderthals were less successful than Homo Sapiens & a possible reason for their demise.......the link will explain it better than I can....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21759233

 

[crosslandkelly]

Interesting stuff. Amazing how it's the small things that make the difference in the survival of a species.

 

[Andy BB]

I read this earlier today on the beeb site - fascinating! Although I'm certain this will not be universally accepted, as other scientific studies show that when the brain (of homo sapiens anyway) is subjected to new stimuli, the specific regions of the brain actually grow rather than pushing into other areas of the brain.

One classical example of this that I remember relates to the gaining of "The Knowledge" by London Black Cab drivers - a certificate required before they can operate as a Black Cab in London. IN this, they have to pass a test which requires them to memorise the entire street map - road names, junctions, important buildings, one-way flows etc - for the whole of London.

Brain scans - before and after "The Knowledge" is gained - show an increase in brain size in the relevant area, not a replacement of other areas of the brain.

 

[quietone]

I'm 2.4% Neanderthal, as indeed are most of us Europeans. I know because I've had my DNA analysed by the national geographic geno2 project. It is interesting, and very addictive trying to narrow down your ancestors likely migration route out of Africa. One of the many interesting facts I've discovered is that we have a pretty efficient immune system thanks to Neanderthal DNA.

 

[Paul_B]

They've just shown two skulls on TV and to my untrained eyes the eye sockets looked the same size or close enough not to be seen easily. If size of eyes is an argument I just don't buy into it without something else to support it.
Scientific knowledge is just guesswork in this I reckon until it is supported by other evidence. One of a few ideas which have yet to be accepted but get taken by media as being THE truth.

 

[Paul_B]

ERM! No. The last Neanderthals died out in Iberian peninsula. They re-tested the skeletons found with improved methodology and have determined that the youngest remains were tens of thousands of years earlier than our an esters got there. I think that means that the old theory of species mingling has been ruled out. That means that whatever your 2.5% is it's not Neanderthal!!!

 

[Paul_B]

There are other claims that are being questioned and even disproved. I reckon in my lifetime many perceived truths of our origins will be rewritten. We're in interesting times scientifically I reckon.

 

[Andy BB]

No Hanky-Panky Necessary?
The draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome, published in the journal Science in 2010, provided the first compelling genetic evidence that Neanderthals and H. sapiens had more in common than just an ancestor in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago.
The researchers, under the direction of Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, found that 2.5 percent of the genome of an average human living outside Africa today is made up of Neanderthal DNA. The average modern African has none.
This suggested that some interbreeding had taken place between the two kinds of human, probably in the Middle East, where the early modern humans migrating out of Africa would have encountered Neanderthals already living there.


Taken from http://news.nationalgeographic.co.u...rthals-science-paabo-dna-sex-breeding-humans/

 

[BJJJ]

I think I have encountered some Neanderthals still living in deepest Croydon

 

[quietone]

Indeed. Neanderthals evolved in Europe, homo sapiens, us, in Africa. There must have been some well ugly offspring when the two species bred.

 

[BJJJ]

Indeed. Neanderthals evolved in Europe, homo sapiens, us, in Africa. There must have been some well ugly offspring when the two species bred.

I resemble that remark.

 

[quietone]

Haha.. Me too, the missus calls my brow a balcony ! I'm also 0.9 % Denisovan, another species apart from the others. The thing to bear in mind is that DNA analysis technology is in its infancy, there's a silly amount that is still just mystery, and guess work.

 

[Paul_B]

Well that was from 2010 but the report I read was from research that has only just been published. It was from carbon dating that showed Neanderthals died out before our ancestors or species arrived in the same area. I read it in a news article from the Google news page. Think it was on the BBC site but cld be wrong.

Can I ask if that 2.4% of shared DNA / genome truly just Neanderthal or cld it be a case of those genes or DNA just being universal to hominids or even apes too? I wonder how species that weren't around at the same time could merge their DNA. Of course both bits of research that seem to be contradictory can't be right?!

It was a draft Neanderthal genome, wonder if the final one has been published and this is still true?

One thing I do question is DNA claims based on truly ancient remains. Even more modern remains are difficult to get good, uncontaminated and complete DNA from. Add tens of thousands of years on to that and would it get any easier? What about contamination? Degradation of the DNA? Whilst radiological dating technology is inaccurate and in that the confidence limits result in wide date ranges the tech is getting better and the new methods used to re-date the Neanderthal remains had a narrow enough range to separate the two species. Wonder which research is right?

 

[Paul_B]

I prefer to think the species did share DNA. It means the Neanderthal species hasn't died out completely.

Besides it would answer a few questions I have on some of my work colleagues. There's a few throw-backs There for sure!!!

 

[quietone]

Regarding the quality and accuracy of the Neanderthal detection percentage I believe they have it pretty much sown up. They have very good samples of DNA and compare that with samples taken from volunteers. The denisovan percentage is still in an experimental phase as they only very recently discovered, identified the separate species DNA.
Dont forget that the male DNA, the Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son, unchanged, generation to generation. Evolution being what it is, clever as it is, we only keep what we need, what is useful to survival. Of course we still get some of the not so useful DNA passed too, disease, weaknesses etc. I too think that we owe lots to our neanderthal cousins, we wouldn't be here otherwise.

 

[boatman]

Why would breeding with Neanderthals have been the key to our survival? Obviously we were here before we met the Neanderthals and would still be here if had never met them probably.

Rather than DNA proportions surely the important things are what genes we got and what effect they have.

 

[quietone]

Our strong immune system is regarded as being inherited from them, at least that's the current thinking. Also I think that they were physically stronger than the homo sapien that migrated out if Africa at the time. Yeah, agree totally. Its the resultant mix of dna that gives us the genetics, abilities we have. Though modern man is doing a good job at ruining its resistance to disease with the overuse of antibiotics..

 

[treadlightly]

Just because neanderthals and homo sapiens did not interbreed in Iberia does not mean it did not happen in the Middle East much earlier, say 50-60,000 years ago. So it's still possible for some of us to have neanderthal dna.

 

[Andy BB]

Interestingly, it seems to state that current-day Africans have no Neanderthal DNA, whereas current Europeans have around 2.5% Neanderthal DNA, the theory being that interbreeding occurred after the first diaspora from Africa.

Which in itself raises a whole lotta interesting information for both white and black supremacist groups to go crazy about. Maybe white and black humans actually are two distinct species! Wouldn't that be a turn-up for the books.............

 

[blacktimberwolf]

............I often wonder if some members of the aristocracy have any equine genes.

The number of Homo Sapiens that left Africa was far smaller than those that stayed & colonised the rest of Africa ( any 2 native people from sub-Saharian Africa have greater genetic differences than any two people in the rest of the world, regardless of the thousands of kilometers that seperate them.) so inbreeding was no doubt occuring which is why prehaps they resolved to dilute their genes with the Neanderthal's who were already present.......inbreeding isn't all bad though as it enables certain traits to be fixed, such as adaption to a specific enviroment....but the selection has to be Draconian & any individual showing abnormalities, eliminated from the breeding program...........Nature at the time would have seen to that though,.......unlike today.