Neanderthals "Had Sex" With Modern Man 536
According to Professor Svante Paabo, director of genetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Neanderthals and modern humans had sex across the species barrier. The professor has been using DNA retrieved from fossils to piece together the entire Neanderthal genome, and plans on publishing his findings soon. He recently told a conference that he was sure the two species had had sex, but still had questions as to how "productive" the relations had been. "What I'm really interested in is, did we have children back then and did those children contribute to our variation today?" he said. "I'm sure that they had sex, but did it give offspring that contributed to us? We will be able to answer quite rigorously with the new [Neanderthal genome] sequence." What remains a mystery is what Paleolithic brewery provided the catalyst for these stone age hook-ups.
Scientific? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'm sure that they had sex"
What evidence? The article says:
"We will be able to answer quite rigorously with the new [Neanderthal genome] sequence."
"Due to the length of time that has elapsed since Neanderthals became extinct, any trace of their DNA in modern humans could have been diluted below detectable levels. Paabo hopes to overcome this by scanning the Neanderthal genome for the genes of modern humans."
Okay, he hopes he will be able to overcome this technical limitation. So in other words, the statement that they had sex is just his personal opinion?
What a troll (Score:2, Insightful)
The only evidence of that would be if the DNA shows that the offspring contributed to our DNA, which he hasn't shown yet. He may as well have said we're desended from aliens, and he's now looking for evidence of that in our DNA.
Re:Scientific? (Score:1, Insightful)
So in other words, the statement that they had sex is just his personal opinion?
If something exists, or existed at the same time and in the same place as people, we've had sex with it.
Re:Scientific? (Score:1, Insightful)
"I'm sure that they had sex"
What evidence?
I don't see why this should be so hard to believe. Modern people engage in bestiality. It's not so much of a stretch to think that if a someone gets off on doing their dog, their distant relatives would not have any problem getting off on a vaguely human-ish bipedal creature. Or a neanderthal.
Humans (Score:2, Insightful)
Humans have had sex with anything that has a hole. The real question is with what frequency and what success. If there were hybrid human-neanderthal babies running around, that would be interesting. It would also explain the existence of 4chan.
Re:Scientific? (Score:5, Insightful)
Diluted below detectable levels
I too was sort of shocked to read that quote.
Genetics doesn't exactly operate like Homeopathy.
He should have known that mitochondrial DNA doesn't dilute in the normal sense. Its been used to trace most human ancestors to a couple places in Africa, almost to a couple of individual females.
I have to wonder just what his basis was, other than sheer speculation. Given the state of civilization (or the lack thereof) at the time, one would not be surprised to see conflict and in conflict taking of prisoners.
Re:humans (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans will have sex with pretty much everything they can...
(if you don't trust me, think of this: if you can think it, someone has made porn about it, just check the tubes).
Re:We can finally explain wherefore Celtic people (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Proclivities (Score:3, Insightful)
Homo Neanderthalenses that is.
Why wouldn't they? We sure would. (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you been in a Wal-mart? People will hump anything with a hole. It seems to me that if you can show that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens/Erectus were in the same place at the same time that you'd need extraordinary proof that they didn't have sex.
Offspring's a much harder question.
And in other scientific news (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists today announced recent evidence suggests beer was invented by Cro-magnon man.
Re:For in those days (Score:2, Insightful)
The bible scholars ignore that and explain it away, deny and ignore it. They don't want to touch it. It is so stupid, so abhorrent to reason it's radioactive but it is in the bible.
It's Genesis 5 and right off the top it seems to say that angels (sons of god) had sex with humans (daughters of men) and begot giants (nephilim). It's the setup and reason for the flood. A close reading shows Noah and his family wasn't chosen for being godly and good but for being "perfect of his generations" i.e not half-breeds!
No bible scholar is going to tell you what the book actually says there.
There is a apocryphal jewish book of Enoch, kind of a fan fiction from the first century that fills in the back story for this one chapter. It's all so absurd but that does really seem to be what the chapter was meant to say and what ancient people read it saying to them. People who were almost as close as we can get to being the authors of the bible.
Re:Scientific? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'm sure that they had sex"
What evidence? The article says:
"We will be able to answer quite rigorously with the new [Neanderthal genome] sequence."
He's -sure- of his hypothesis. You think scientists don't become convinced of our own hypotheses before we have actual evidence? We do. I've been quite convinced of my own hypotheses and even occasionally ignored evidence that suggests I'm wrong, much to my later regret. I'm sure every scientist, and probably everyone else as well, has committed similar sins at some point.
Re:Of course they did (Score:3, Insightful)
And I swear...I've known people that I know are proof that not only did they have sex with them..but, that they procreated, and exist today..hahaha.
Re:Wonder how they will work this out... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scientific? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:humans (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:humans (Score:3, Insightful)
We have had flying cars for some time, now. At least two decades.
But to alow regular people access to those vehicles would cause far more problems than it's worth. They can barely stay on a road, you think they're going to fare better in the air?
Re:humans (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:humans (Score:1, Insightful)
When I have points, I mod up anyone that uses "M$" in their posts.
And I usually mod them down because its usually twitter
http://slashdot.org/~SockDisclosure/journal/214377 [slashdot.org]
--
When I have mod points, I mod down anyone that uses "M$" in their posts.
Re:humans (Score:3, Insightful)
You jest, but how do we know it isn't so?
I'm too lazy to look around for it at the moment, but I wonder if there are any synchronous comparable samples of both "human" and neanderthal DNA. That is to say, do we have samples of DNA from both humans and neanderthals, from say 15,000 years ago? How do those samples compare in similarity to modern human DNA? Maybe its just a gut feeling, but I strongly suspect that there is a real, even likely possibility that neanderthal descended genes are present in modern-day humans. It would be incredibly interesting to have that proven or disproven.
Re:humans (Score:4, Insightful)
Arabs are Caucasian. Caucasian is wider term than Aryan so that it includes Semitic people like Jews and Arabs.
Re:humans (Score:2, Insightful)
Because, Neanderthals had a larger brain capacity than modern humans. If Congress were full of them, we'd have more intelligent legislation.
(In all seriousness, if you gave a Neanderthal man modern clothing, he could probably go about freely in any modern city without anyone noticing.)
Re:humans (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is he racist? Genes are genes, ethnic groups have different genes to other ethnic groups, that's what makes them look different. It doesn't make them any intrinsically better or worse at being a "person" in the modern understanding any more than a Labrador is an intrinsically better or worse pet than a golden retriever.
If any ethnic group had Neanderthal DNA in its genepool, based on geographic range and skull shape chances are it is Caucasian people, my own race. If this is true, what difference does it make? We've done fairly well for ourselves I think, we're as human as anyone else. I don't really know many other Caucasian people where I live, but I don't feel like I'm grazing with a heard of some other species and I don't think they consider me to be a domesticated Neanderthal pet (at least I hope not).
Sometimes racial studies are done for the purposes of proving a master race. But usually, it's just because different people have different physiologies and have different common ailments, different recommended lifestyle and diet. If something as superficially obvious as race can tell a doctor what that person is likely to be allergic to and whether that person is likely to have diabetes, it is useful to know.
However, to me, those "Race and IQ" studies that seem to keep popping up on marginal websites and drawing the bulk of the attention, although not necessarily false, serve little other purpose than to piss people off. Even if they are true, I can see very little practical application, to me they just serve to aggravate the "PC" crowd, but sadly catch the individuals of the races at the bottom of the list (who may themselves be quite smart) in the crossfire.
Re:humans (Score:3, Insightful)
Neanderthals probably had poorer speech capabilities than Cro-magnon (a guess based on nasal sinuses and palate configuration). They also were probably worse at throwing things overhand. (Their favored hunting style was for a bunch of them to take spears and get in close to thrust for the kill.) Also, there's some evidence that their women had narrower hips relative to the size of the baby's head at birth. This probably translated into higher mortality in both the mother and the baby.
We do know that groups of Cro-magnons and Neanderthals lived in the same place at approximately the same time. Proving that it's exactly the same time is quite difficult, and I'm not certain that it's possible, but they certainly *could* have co-habited. They seem to have exchanged styles of tool-making, so occasional close relationships seems clear.
Neanderthals tended to be stockier and more muscular. As a result they needed to eat more, but they were also less sensitive to cold. (They evolved during a glaciation.) It's not at all clear to me that they deserve to be called a separate species. They've several distinct physical features, but that's not enough. So, e.g., do red-heads. (E.g., they tend to be more sensitive to pain.)
Also, don't pay too much attention to the visual appearance of museum reconstructions. They are made with an eye towards making the public aware of the differences, and as a result they tend to exaggerate any theorized differences portrayed by current (or recent past) science.
Re:humans (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's because Humans and Neanderthals are actually the same "species".
BZZZZZT! Wrong! Same genus (homo) but different species. Neanderthals were homo neanderthalensis while modern humans are homo sapiens sapiens.
Still not correct. The debate is still on whether they are a separate species (Homo Neanderthalensis), or merely a subspecies of humans (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis).
If the researcher in the story should find evidence that Modern humans and Neanderthals did in fact interbreed on a regular basis, the findings may likely result in the classification of Neanderthal man being set as a subspecies of human rather than a separate species.
Re:Most likely (Score:3, Insightful)
Roman Polanski tested that, and look where it got him.
Rich, famous, admired, and protected?