Scientists Map Neanderthal Genome 229
goran72 writes "In a development which could reveal the links between modern humans and their prehistoric cousins, scientists said they have mapped a first draft of the Neanderthal genome. Researchers used DNA fragments extracted from three Croatian fossils to map out more than 60 percent of the entire Neanderthal genome by sequencing three billion bases of DNA."
Wonder where the stories about trolls come from? (Score:2)
Wonder where the stories about trolls come from?
Re:Wonder where the stories about trolls come from (Score:5, Funny)
Wonder where the stories about trolls come from?
Here?
I kinda doubt it (Score:5, Interesting)
I kinda doubt it. Neanderthals went extinct so long ago, that I doubt that any stories or myths from that age would have survived as long.
We're talking long before humanity invented writing, so the only way it could have survived is if the shaman of a tribe taught his apprentice about it, and so on. For some tens of thousands of years straight. I'd think that's rather unlikely. They had more pressing concerns in the here and now than "those guys our ancestors lived in the same cave with."
Basically, how many folk stories do we have about woolly mammoths? Why would Neanderthals be remembered more?
Re:I kinda doubt it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It looks like that Wikipedia page may need to be updated. From TFA:
"The analysis showed it is highly unlikely that much interbreeding occurred as there was "very little, if any" Neanderthal contribution to the human gene pool, said lead researcher Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Myths can live a long time. We have stories in our culture whose origins date back five thousand years, and perhaps more. It is possible that the European stories of trolls and ogres came from the days when humans and Neanderthals both use to live in Europe. We will never know if this is the case, but the possibility can not be completely ruled out.
Homo Floresis may be 13K years old (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The biblical flood may be a story about a real flood that happened when the Black sea formed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea#Deluge_Hypothesis [wikipedia.org]
FOXP2 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, just like the Flintstones!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FOXP2 is responsible for "language development" with songbirds and other animals(*), too. If your logic would be correct, birds would talk like humans - which they obviously don't. (*)
The FOXP2 protein sequence is highly conserved. Similar FOXP2 proteins can be found in songbirds, fish, and reptiles such as alligators.
see here [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we just get over discussing the other day how wikipedia is not a valid reference?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we just get over discussing the other day how wikipedia is not a valid reference?
Sorry, your post doesn't count, because you didn't provide any supporting references.
Re:FOXP2 (Score:5, Informative)
Having or not having FOXP2 is not the point. The point is that neanderthals had exactly the same allele, the same sequence of FOXP2 that we humans have. And that small changes to this sequence render humans speechless.
In other words: having a gene for eye pigmentation does not make you blue-eyed. But having a particular version of this gene can. Some people think that this particular version of FOXP2 is necessary for correct speech development.
j.
Re:FOXP2 (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it is fascinating, but you have to take into account that FOXP2 is a transcription factor that acts when "collaborating" (dimerising) with other transcription factors (or itself) to regulate a whole range of different genes, which in turn can affect a whole range of physical (phenotypical) features (like speech development). True, people who have a mutation in FOXP2 are normal, but are not able to coordinate the movements required to speak, and this is a quite specific effect. But FOXP2 has definitely other "applications" as well - it is required for correct brain development in general, for example.
This makes any changes (or lack of them) very hard to trace back to specific effects. The fact that neanderthals had the same "version" (allele) of this gene might be an indicator, but then -- it might just be a coincidence. Chimps are just two mutations away.
What complicates the picture even more is the fact that not only the actual sequence of the protein matters -- also the regulatory sites around it (where other transciption factors bind and promote / inhibit the activation of FOXP2). And these tend to be variable even when they work very similarily.
j.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... Umm... heh... Cool...
So they don't make grunting sounds like humans... Hum.
Ethics and cloning (Score:2, Interesting)
This would be a perfect test for cloning, as it would be incredibly interesting to clone these creatures and study them. We could discover their intelligence, learning capability, physical appearance, and other things that can only be guessed at through the fossil record. In the name of science, it behooves us to do such cloning (along with cloning of wooly mammoths and dingos).
The problem would be that, like monkeys, Neanderthals are primates and would probably be the focus of animal rights groups seeking
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What would you do? Keep them in a lab? How would you justify that?
Public safety.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"What would you do? Keep them in a lab? How would you justify that?"
"Pubic safety"
There, fixed that for you. You sick greedy bastard....
Re: (Score:2)
What would you do? Keep them in a lab? How would you justify that?
Put them in parliament. They'd fit right in.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends upon how smart they are. If they're smart enough to move about in society and take care of themselves, then I guess that you have to let them go.
Don't assume the bad guy movie scenario if you don't have to.
Re:Ethics and cloning (Score:5, Informative)
Just because they may look structurally similar to humans, they aren't human.
I really, really hope this is a troll; the same has been said of Jews, Black people, Irish, Native Americans and many more.
Re:Ethics and cloning (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because they may look structurally similar to humans, they aren't human.
I really, really hope this is a troll; the same has been said of Jews, Black people, Irish, Native Americans and many more.
Yes, and the same has been said about chimpanzees and gorillas. In those cases the statement is correct. Comparing this to a comment about racism really isn't helpful. We don't really know how bright neanderthals were and we don't really know if they could reproduce with homo sapiens. If they were about as bright as us and are cross-fertile then you'd have a point. Certainly if we could not interbreed then it isn't at all unreasonable to label them a separate species.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are only slightly less bright then us, then it wouldn't matter if they are a different species - they'd still deserve the same basic rights as any human, elf, or Klingon.
It's not about appearances (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just about appearances. The Neanderthals:
- used tools to make other tools. Apes do make improvised tools like sharpening sticks, but only Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens would build a stone axe to use to build a stone spear, and then keep both.
- skinned animals and tanned the skins
- built elaborate shelters out of wood and skins
- used clothes (e.g., made from those skins)
- built (crude) musical instruments. And not just as in "something that makes noise", but as in, for example, a flute which can play more than one note. So they probably had music too.
- had a bit of work specialization, which would also mean a bit more complex a social structure, and possibly even some kind of commerce (at least as in, "I'll make you a strong spear if you give me a leg of antelope.")
- decorated themselves with primitive jewellery and paints (basically early cosmetics)
- had ritual burial, which would indicate some concept of afterlife or at least remorse. (You don't bother burying someone in the same position, and with his weapon, and stuff, unless you expect it to matter somehow.)
Etc.
And according to this research, they probably were as capable of speech as the humans, because they have the same gene.
Oh, and another bit of trivia: they actually had a higher average brain size than Homo Sapiens. And in a smaller body, too. So if we go by the popular brain-mass/body-mass metric, they should actually be a little smarter on the average.
So we're not talking just as in "looks like a human", but something that was definitely just as sentient and self-aware as a human. It could probably not just understand that you're experimenting on it, but understand the experiment if you bother explaining the science behind it.
And if you think that it still makes it ok, because it's still a different species... well, then I'd say your empathy is too broken to be the same as 99% of the humans. You're different. When can we start experimenting on _you_ then?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
another bit of trivia: they actually had a higher average brain size than Homo Sapiens. And in a smaller body, too. So if we go by the popular brain-mass/body-mass metric, they should actually be a little smarter on the average.
Tell the court, Bright Eyes, what is the second article of faith?
Cloning != ready adult (Score:2)
What people seem to forget in discussions on cloning is that cloned animals/humans are born and grow up just like any child. A cloned neanderthal would have a mother and would grow up with modern humans in our current society. Witho
Re: (Score:2)
This really depends on whether Neandertals had the same neural wiring modern humans do. Perh
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that was probably reason enough for us to wipe them out. Particularly if they suffered from the same social ineptitude that seems to come with additional brain power.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say your empathy is too broken to be the same as 99% of the humans. You're different. When can we start experimenting on _you_ then?
Unfortunately he's not as different as you might think, considering the number of humans who think it's perfectly fine to spy on, imprison without due process, torture, and kill other humans as long as they are foreign nationals.
Re:Ethics and cloning (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why it probably won't be done. Cloning a Neanderthal opens up an enormous can of worms. We're able to declare that it's wrong to do certain things to humans, but fine to do the same to animals, because there's a substantial gap between H. Sapiens and the nearest relatives, the chimpanzees. Even so there is serious disquiet over treating the great apes in such a manner, and even experimentation on more distant relatives attracts protest, especially if the animals in question happen to be cute.
That gap between us and the chimpanzee - and hence the rest of the animal kingdom - exists only because all the intermediates are dead and buried. We draw a line in a conveniently empty space. Now we propose to clone a Neanderthal, and ask on which side of the line he falls. If you say he is a man, then what if we now clone H. erectus? H. heidelbergensis? A. Afarensis? Suddenly we don't have a clear-cut boundary between human and nonhuman, but a continuum of clones. Where is the line drawn, and on what grounds? You might end up defining all the hominids as human, Homo, Pan, Gorilla and Pongo together, and rule out experimentation on them all. Then what of other human rights? Votes for Neanderthals - yes? Votes for Chimps - no? A sliding scale of rights based on intellectual capability? Who administers the test?
Our whole society is built on the unspoken, unexamined assumption that we know what is human and what is not. Cloning our ancestors in this way undermines that. Which is why I doubt it will be done any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Geico wants to fund it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, yes they are/were. Neanderthals are a subspecies of humans, "Neanderthal Man" as opposed to "Wise Wise Man", that being us. That's the whole reason why any experimentation on them would be interesting, and also why it woul
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Neanderthals are probably not any different in that way (it is probable, though, they disappeared because we humans killed them off)"
One _theory_ is that they disappeared because we (or rather, Cro-Magnon Man, who also disappeared around 8,000 BCE) killed them off, but there are plenty of other theories which are equally probable in that none of them have much in the way of supporting evidence. The only real answer to the question of why they died out is therefore the same as the one for so many other exti
Re: (Score:2)
i.e. we do not as yet know why they disappeared.
Once we clone one, we can just teach him how to talk and ask him what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
"Neanderthals are probably not any different in that way (it is probable, though, they disappeared because we humans killed them off)"
One _theory_ is that they disappeared because we (or rather, Cro-Magnon Man, who also disappeared around 8,000 BCE) killed them off, but there are plenty of other theories which are equally probable
I'm always amazed that people don't think that genocide is the most probable answer.
How many situations involving different human cultures meeting have resulted in something else than total war and massacres?
None? Less than zero? Wiping off other humans who are slightly different than us is one of the few universal human traits (trait may also apply to ants).
60 percent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:60 percent (Score:5, Informative)
Since neanderthals are much more related to humans one would expect the number of gene orthologs between humans and neanderthals to be between 98% and 100%. All the genes they mapped will probably genes that humans also have, the interesting bits may come from differences in those genes between the two species. And of course the genes that humans have and naederthals not (or vice versa) but my guess is they haven't mapped those yet. It's easier to map a gene if you know what you're looking for (human ortholog).
most genes are for basic cell metabolism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The term "share XX % DNA" is largely incorrect and misleading. In short, if you have mapped 60% of the genome, you can hardly underestimate the significance of this information. I will try to explain why you are on the wrong track.
1) what is usually meant by that is that "XX % of the sequence is identical". This is not always informative, as during evolution, much of the sequence can mutate neutrally without major changes in the phenotype. Two almost identically looking worms (and also quite similar on mole
photo of neanderthal (Score:2)
available here [maximumpc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a deep insult to all Neanderthal-kind. They, at least, made things that people could use (and wanted to).
That is not what you think :-) (Score:5, Informative)
On a serious note, there are a few scientific issues at stake here.
First let me explain this "positive selection" stuff from the article. When a mutation within a coding region of a gene takes place, it can either be a silent mutation (no change in the resulting proteins) due to the redundancy of the genetic code, or it can change the amino acid sequence of the protein and thereby possibly its function.
Now, mutations happen at random. But depending on what kind of an effect the changes have, they might be wiped out by natural selection. For example, mutations in the "core system", the "kernel" of any living cell -- replication machinery usually are wiped out, because the machinery is so finely tuned that most mutations seriously screw it up. If the changes are largely neutral, the ratio of the mutations that have an effect divided by mutations that are silent (so called dN/dS ratio) is roughly equal to what we would expect based on random model, and we speak of neutral evolution.
On the other hand, environmental pressure, change of times, parasite pressure or many other things can lead to an accelerated rate of evolution -- measured by the fraction nonsynonymous mutations / silent mutations. Thus, one can detect whether a species, gene or genome was subjected to a specific pressure. And if we look at the whole genome, we can tell a lot about what this pressure was. And of course, it works both ways -- we can tell a lot about what the pressure was that shaped us, humans.
* of course, learn more about neanderthals -- who were they, did they mix with humans (current analyses say no, but who knows what one can find in the whole genome). Were they human at all? Did they really talk? What kind of culture did they have?
* by learning about divergence between neanderthals and homo sapiens, answer the fundamental questions of biology -- who are we? what makes us different from animals? What made us spread and neanderthals disappear?
* analysis of genome instead of single genes takes the whole thing up one level.
* tracing back evolution (in general, it is not only about human evolution) -- not by comparing sequences of organisms that live nowadays, but really going back in time. Among others, this will let us test the tools that we routinely use for phylogenetic analysis (that is, tracing back the evolution).
Regards,
j. (who currently works on genome evolution in bacteria)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course it isn't ignored. It's a whole field of research. And yes, there are plenty of tools, some of them quite old (and most of them requiring maths).
Question whether there was some degree of genetic exchange between Neanderthals and humans have been already asked decades ago -- and most probably, already answered. The answer is based on the sequences that have already been obtained and it is a "no".
j.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some of the world's leading authorities on Neanderthals disagree with your "no."
In particular, they point to the Lagar Velho skeleton [wustl.edu].
"the analysis has revealed that the child exhibits distinctive characteristics of both contemporaneous European early modern humans and preceding Neandertals. It therefore provides evidence of previous admixture between Neandertals and early modern humans in southwestern Europe."
Re: (Score:2)
It's not nearly as clear-cut as that. That result was obtained by examining the mitochondrial DNA, which is only inherited from the mother. All it shows is that all modern humans have a common female ancestor but Neanderthals were not descended from her.
It says nothing about the nuclear DNA, of which half comes from the father.
Similar things can be done with Y chromosomes. Anyone know if this has been done yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
* of course, learn more about neanderthals -- who were they, did they mix with humans (current analyses say no, but who knows what one can find in the whole genome). Were they human at all? Did they really talk? What kind of culture did they have?
* by learning about divergence between neanderthals and homo sapiens, answer the fundamental questions of biology -- who are we? what makes us different from animals? What made us spread and neanderthals disappear?
* analysis of genome instead of single genes takes
How did they convince Mr Ballmer to give a sample? (Score:2)
Neanderthals Neanderthals Neanderthals Neanderthals Neanderthals Neanderthals
Dance Monkey Boy!
Scientists Map Neanderthal Genome (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory ID angle (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder what IDers claim neanderthals are supposed to be. Beta versions?
Serious question? (Score:5, Interesting)
The serious answer is that they believe that the bone fragments are either human in origin or mocked up from bones of existing apes.
There is no Neanderthal species for ID proponents. The answer is either they are human or they never really existed and the evolutionists are involved in a vast conspiracy to validate their own beliefs by creating these "pre-human" humanoids.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a serious question, but since we're at it; I do not really see a problem for anyone supposing deity-of-your-preference created universe and life and so on: Exactly like it is, evolving, perfecting (to it's niche) .. After all the big book says something about free will and such. What are fundies to presume how omnipotent entity sees "free will"? Quite possibly for universe-as-a-reference-frame consciousness would see biosphere as an entity and so forth. Or, even more likely, galaxies would form a
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm sure Neanderthal's are just descendants of Lilith.
Re: (Score:2)
They found out that Piltdown Man was a fake so therefore all the others must be fake too.
No, seriously...
Re: (Score:2)
All hominid fossils are either humans, or apes. Never anything intermediate between the two. Which is which, well... that depends who you ask. [talkorigins.org]
Re: (Score:2)
When dealing with Creationists (which IDers are really), remember that there are two groups:
1. Young Earth Creationists. These folks think that the world is about 6,000 years old. Any fossils found, they claim, don't come from creatures but were placed there by God to test us. If you don't believe the evidence in front of you, then you've passed the test. Personally, I would hope that, any God there might be wouldn't be so messed up as to give us intelligence, and then place evidence in front of us that
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what IDers claim neanderthals are supposed to be.
Sick humans.
"That's not a different species, it's an old man with a bone disease."
That's what they were saying about homo florensis.
The sentence in the article with intrigued me. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why they died out is a matter of furious debate, because they co-existed alongside modern man."
Thing is.
Hasn't the author noticed that "co-existing alongside modern man" is not good for one's health?
Perhaps the sentence should have read:
"Why they died out is a matter of furious debate, although the probable reason is that they co-existed alongside modern man, which is a species known to be (a) warlike, (b) greedy, (c) bloodthirsty, and (d) in general dangerous to the health of other species, most of which it has eliminated from the face of the earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Feh. Their chicks were ugly and they kept on taking our food out of the fridge without replacing it.
They had to die.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, regarding point d, be fair: the biggest cause of extinction occurred at the Permian-Triassic boundary and still hasn't been identified.
And there is an argument that a lot of the domesticated species, such as corn or dogs, have evolved over the last 20,000 years or so to form a symbiotic system with humans: we protect them for a while, give them ideal conditions, and make sure they reproduce, and in return we get food. So humans aren't too dangerous to be around if you're a species humans can make good
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I think the replacement hypothesis is much more reasonable. Humans had a slightly better average reproductive rate than Neandertals, enough that human populations in Eurasia exploded, marginalizing Neandertals, forcing them to the edges (and beyond) of their old stomping grounds, only increasing the mortality rate. Eventually, the populations simply disappeared, until the last groups, apparently in southern Spain and Gibraltar, were too small in number to sustain the species.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At any rate, one thing I've read from a couple sources is that Neandertals likely had a much higher metabolic rate than modern humans, and thus were outcompeted for food. One figure I read (in Nat Geo, I think) was that Neandertals would have needed around 7k calories a day, while moder humans require around 2k calories.
This, coupled with a less diverse food
Re:The sentence in the article with intrigued me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ray, it's a surprise to see you commenting on a non-RIAA story (despite all evidence to the contrary, RIAA execs & lawyers are not Neandertals).
:)
Despite all evidence to the contrary, I did, and do, have a life outside of fighting with the RIAA subhumans. In fact, I was for the first half of my college career, an anthropology major, and prior to that attended the Bronx High School of Science. (One of my only nerd or geek credentials.)
Based upon all I learned in anthropology, I concur that the RIAA lawyers are not Neanderthals. I believe that the RIAA lawyers are NOT descended from a common ancestor at all, but are an alien form of being which probably came from outer space. I am uncertain as to whether they can be characterized as a "life" form or not, since their blood is cold.
At any rate, one thing I've read from a couple sources is that Neandertals likely had a much higher metabolic rate than modern humans, and thus were outcompeted for food. One figure I read (in Nat Geo, I think) was that Neandertals would have needed around 7k calories a day, while moder humans require around 2k calories. This, coupled with a less diverse food supply for Neandertals, meant that modern humans were much better at surviving and reproducing during times of scarcity, like the ice ages. Modern humans and Neadertals competed in the same niches, and if the Neandertals were better adapted to it, they would have wiped out H. Sapiens instead.
Thing is, h. sapiens has a remarkable track record of wiping out other species, and even members of its own species. Sometimes inadvertently by just greedily and myopically destroying the environment around them. Sometimes intentionally as for example exterminating bison, or exterminating Jews or Armenians, or sometimes just other tribes.
I think it's a mistake to place any scorn on individuals battling for survival, like humans were doing then. Once a culture has developed that has the excess resources to care for those less capable, then you might have a point...
If your assumption is true, that they were merely better adapted, then of course I would not place "scorn" upon them. However, human history shows that as well adapted as we are, we nevertheless -- collectively -- have a tendency to (a) kill more than we need for food, (b) consume without regard to the future, and (c) engage in senseless violence all kinds of living things.
I do have a certain scorn for selfishness, because human beings are capable of more, and it is perhaps their most distinguishing characteristic that they are; they have the ability to love their fellow man, people they don't even know; to love and to adhere to and preserve the values of people who died long ago; to love and to look out for unborn generations they've never met and never will meet.
Human nature has good in it, and evil in it.
In view of the scant relevant evidence we have, there is no reason in the world for us to eliminate, as one of the possible explanations for the extinction of the Neanderthal people.... us.
If someone who was once here is missing, we are, I am afraid, the "usual suspect".
Clone one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why use fossils? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking your mother.
Re:what if (Score:4, Funny)
Re:what if (Score:5, Funny)
You should not be in the zoo. No, you should not be in the zoo. With all the things that you can do, the circus is the place for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you think bearded ladies come from.
Other than slashdot basement dwellers.
Re:zoo (Score:2)
+1 Seuss
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who's seen a neanderthal skull knows that something different was going on there. Humans just don't look like that. The bone structures are all quite different.
Of course if you looked at a Chihuahua and a Great Dane you would think something was going on there too.
Re: (Score:2)
But, of course, we don't see the differences in the genome that we do between humans and Neandertals. The lack of any "African" genes in Neandertals (and by African, I mean from the migrations of modern H. sapiens out of Africa), despite Neandertals and modern humans living in the same areas for thousands of years suggests very heavily that if there was any mating between the two groups, it did not produce fertile offspring. That would very heavily suggest that Neandertals and modern humans are different
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to what was said on NPR this morning, there is less than a 1% difference between the human genome and the neanderthal genome.
The fact that there is a difference at all shows we and they were two distinct species. This doesn't even take into consideration the 2-3% difference between humans and chimpanzees.
Re:what if (Score:4, Informative)
By definition, two species are distinct if they cannot breed and produce fertile offspring. The whole point of this research is to determine whether this is true or not. So this:
The fact that there is a difference at all shows we and they were two distinct species.
misses the point entirely. You and I have different dna. Does the fact that there is a difference at all make us separate species? I very much doubt it.
The whole question being researched is precisely this: how much difference was there between neanderthals and modern humans, and was it enough of a difference that they could not have interbred. It is the inability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, not the presence of any difference at all, that determines separate species status.
Re:what if (Score:4, Informative)
According to the researcher they had on NPR this morning, that question has not been answered. Here [npr.org] is the NPR link. The third paragraph talks about the divergence between humans and neanderthals. The next to last paragraph mentions the question of interbreeding. You of course can listen to the entire broadcast by following the link at the top of the article.
You and I have different dna.
That is true as individuals, but as we are both humans, we have the same overall genome and so could breed (assuming male-female of course). With neanderthals having a slightly different genome than humans, there could be enough of a difference to not have allowed that to happen, especially since we and they diverged to two different branches just as we and the great apes diverged even earlier. Obviously, those in the know will have to make that determination.
Re:what if (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus, "species" is sort of a fuzzy and debated term with lots of funny edge cases - much to the consternation of people who need to label everything :)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that there is a difference at all shows we and they were two distinct species.
I'm no geneticist, but it seems that couldn't be true. Wouldn't every evolutionary change signify a change in the genome?
At what point do you define a new species.. now 1% is probably enough to classify as that, but what about 0.01%?
Re: (Score:2)
Your guess is as good as mine. I'm not a geneticist, or any -ist for that matter, so I have no answer. However, since the chimpanzees 2-3% discrepancy is enough to differentiate it from us, it would stand to reason that a 1% difference would also be sufficient. It's when you get to fractions of a percent that things get muddled.
However, here is something to ponder. Since we know evol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This would require reproductive isolatio
Re: (Score:2)
No, you'd better hope that there is a difference between the human genome and the Neanderthal genome.
According to what was said on NPR this morning, there is less than a 1% difference between the human genome and the neanderthal genome.
The fact that there is a difference at all shows we and they were two distinct species.
The genetic difference between human individuals is 1%.
I guess you're not in the same species as me, monkey-boy.
Re:what if (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually during the time neanderthals lived alongside the real human ancestors, they were the smarter species of the two
Not so. During the time when both Modern Humans and Neanderthals coexisted, Modern Humans, by and large, showed evidence of the more sophisticated material culture (tools, art,etc.). Maybe you're thinking of the fact that, on average, Neanderthals had larger brains? Larger brain size does not = more intelligent. It's quite likely that Neanderthals had larger brains for the same reason that they had short, thick limbs: an evolved adaptation to the extreme cold of glacial eurasia. Neanderthal body proportions were most likely an example of Allen's Rule [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have more sophisticated material culture than any generation before you. Does this mean that you are smarter than all of your ancestors? Of course not. It simply means that you've inherited the intellec
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would imagine, all in all, that human and Neandertal brains were the same density. Let's remember, here, that the arrival of modern-looking humans (that is, humans that are morphologically the same as us) predates by tens of thousands of years the arrival of humans that behaved in a modern fashion. Prior to that, modern-looking humans didn't behave all that differently from their forebearers; the toolkits remained static for thousands of years, little evidence of symbolic thinking; behaviors key to how
Re: (Score:2)
Be fair: G.W. is no Neanderthal. Neanderthals were generally pretty stocky, and he's rather skinny.
Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand ...
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a hoax, considering numerous Neandertal skulls have been found in Eurasia and the Middle East.
Re: (Score:2)
There are significant morphological differences between Neandertals and humans. But hey, as long as your long discredited world view gets a boost, then by all means call scientists liars. It only demonstrates the extent of your depravity, ignorance and immorality.
Re: (Score:2)
We are not here by random chance, look at the numbers and see the REAL ODDS calculated by REAL SCIENTISTS and you will see that it is impossible. Open your eyes and let the truth set you free.
Care to post these odds and the credentials of the scientists involved in these calculations?