DNA Analysis Probes the End of Human-Neanderthal Sex 160
An anonymous reader writes "Modern Europeans may have interbred with Neanderthals as recently as 37,000 years ago, after modern humans with advanced stone tools expanded out of Africa, according to a new study. In an attempt to understand why the Neanderthals are more closely related to people from outside of Africa, researchers from Harvard and the Max Planck Institute estimated that while the last sex between Neanderthals and modern humans may have occurred 37,000 to 86,000 years ago, it is most likely that it occurred 47,000 to 65,000 years ago."
snoo-snoo from damn neanderthal women (Score:4, Funny)
raped my great-great-.......great grandaddy! and he liked it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the denouncement had absolutely no effect.
Parents and counselors constantly scorn them,
But humans and Neanderthals are still having sex and nothing seems to stop them."
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they say:
"Once you go Neanderthalensis, you'll never go back-a-lensis!"
(Fine. You find a rhyme for 'Neanderthalensis')
Re: (Score:2)
(Fine. You find a rhyme for 'Neanderthalensis')
Supercalifragilisticexpialidensis.
Re:snoo-snoo from damn neanderthal women (Score:5, Funny)
You know what they say:
"Once you go Neanderthalensis, you'll never go back-a-lensis!"
(Fine. You find a rhyme for 'Neanderthalensis')
Next time you rhyme 'Neanderthalensis'
Leave that task to an amanuensis,
Or someone who doesn't sit on fences:
They'd just still need to know what your sense is.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they say:
"Once you go Neanderthalensis, you'll never go back-a-lensis!"
(Fine. You find a rhyme for 'Neanderthalensis')
Next time you rhyme 'Neanderthalensis'
Leave that task to an amanuensis,
Or someone who doesn't sit on fences:
They'd just still need to know what your sense is.
Wow!
A "tip-o-the-mod-point" to Ogden Nash here...
Good job.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not just impressed with the vocabulary, but with the sublime self-reference that this line makes, in the context of your reply.
Re: (Score:2)
No sex for 37,000 years. They should just accept that it's not working out and get a divorce.
The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (Score:5, Funny)
the last sex between Neanderthals and modern humans may have occurred 37,000 to 86,000 years ago
Maria Shriver begs to differ.
Re:The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, but Maria is probably as Neanderthal as Arnold. What interests me is that the Neanderthal genes never made it back into Sub-Saharan Africa, which means that some Africans remained mostly separated from non-Africans for a quite a long time. Same goes for Micronesians and Austrailians, who have Denisovan genes that the rest of humanity doesn't have.
And I guess this explains how it is we managed to end up with noticeably tweaked physical features. If Europeans and Mid-East people had been exchanging a lot of genes with Sub-Saharan Africans (for example if there had been a lot of trade between Africa and Europe or if there had been migrations into Africa) you'd expect there to be less difference in skin and eye color and more variation of hair curliness among Africans.
Had there been more trade or immigration to Africa, Africans might look more like African-Americans, who have a mixture of African, European and other ancestry.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"What interests me is that the Neanderthal genes never made it back into Sub-Saharan Africa"
That reminds me of an old joke about Jesus and the second coming:
Man #1: Why hasn't the second coming happened yet?
Man #2: Have you been to Palestine?
Man #1: Yes, I have
Man #2: Would you go back?
Man #1: No
Man #2: Exactly!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am pretty sure that DNA wouldn't effect the looks as much regarding skin tone and possibly hair. It was most likely thousands of years spent in a specific environment that contributed to looks. It is possible to see drastic changes to a persons body in one lifetime so you can just imagine what would happen if generations settled in a specific area.
And how do you think population characteristics are passed between generations? magic?
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you think population characteristics are passed between generations? magic?
God did it [slashdot.org], according to our Republican Physician Overlords, whom we do not particularly welcome.
Re: (Score:1)
I am pretty sure that DNA wouldn't effect the looks as much regarding skin tone and possibly hair. It was most likely thousands of years spent in a specific environment that contributed to looks. It is possible to see drastic changes to a persons body in one lifetime so you can just imagine what would happen if generations settled in a specific area.
And how do you think population characteristics are passed between generations? magic?
Dude, there's no point in arguing with Lamarck [wikipedia.org] anymore. He's just bitter that his theory was discredited after the works of Darwin, Mendel, and Watson/Crick, so he spends his time online attempting to plant seeds of doubt.
It's just some form of bizarre astroturfing/trolling he's been doing for the last ~250 years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Lamarckian evolution acurately describes the evolution of cultures, not individuals. None of us has to evolve culturally from the Serangeti as we grow up, after all. A cute sci fi book, :talks about it [amazon.com] a bit. Good read. It definitely made me think.
Re: (Score:2)
Had there been more trade or immigration to Africa, Africans might look more like African-Americans, who have a mixture of African, European and other ancestry.
I am pretty sure that DNA wouldn't effect the looks as much regarding skin tone and possibly hair. It was most likely thousands of years spent in a specific environment that contributed to looks. It is possible to see drastic changes to a persons body in one lifetime so you can just imagine what would happen if generations settled in a specific area.
OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that skin color, etc, is a choice???
Re: (Score:2)
If generations showed more variation than one lifetime, then it was because of genetics.
Neanderthals and humans and Arnold and Maria (Score:2)
Re:The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (Score:5, Funny)
the last sex between Neanderthals and modern humans may have occurred 37,000 to 86,000 years ago
Maria Shriver begs to differ.
You got that mixed up, Neanderthals are from the past and Terminators are from the future.
look at maria shriver's face (Score:2)
i can see neanderthal in that just as much as in arnold
unless your comment is more of a morality judgment on his actions, in that case WHOOSH on me
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean I can have a gene test to see how much neanderthal I have in me? Cool...
Re: (Score:2)
to be fair, the study only shows the most recent likely successful reproduction, not the most recent sexual copulation.
All the DNA testing of ancestry in the world wouldn't uncover the amount of copulation that happened in private with a bar of soap or a piece of soft cotton. (ahem)
Last sex 37,000-86,000 years ago (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure most of the readership is tallying up the last time they got laid, and wondering if they were in fact the last of their kind to do so.
reproduction != sex (Score:5, Insightful)
I do wonder what changed after the alleged period when occasional reproduction occurred.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:reproduction != sex (Score:5, Funny)
lift their tail, and you'll see it.
Re:reproduction != sex (Score:5, Funny)
It's Sunday, what the heck: (Source: http://www.squidoo.com/sheepjokes#module33629552 [squidoo.com])
A New Zealander buys several sheep, hoping to breed them for wool. After several weeks, he notices that none of the sheep are getting pregnant, and calls a vet for help. The vet tells him that he should try artificial insemination.
The New Zealander doesn't have the slightest idea what this means but, not wanting to display his ignorance, only asks the vet how he will know when the sheep are pregnant. The vet tells him that they will stop standing around and will, instead, lay down and wallow in the grass when they are pregnant.
The Man hangs up and gives it some thought. He comes to the conclusion that artificial insemination means he has to impregnate the sheep. So, he loads the sheep into his truck, drives them out into the woods, has sex with them all, brings them back and goes to bed.
Next morning, he wakes and looks out at the sheep. Seeing that they are all still standing around, he concludes that the first try didn't take, and loads them in the truck again. He drives them out to the woods, bangs each sheep twice for good measure, brings them back and goes to bed.
Next morning, he wakes to find the sheep still just standing around. One more try, he tells himself, and proceeds to load them up and drive them out to the woods. He spends all day shagging the sheep and, upon returning home, falls listlessly into bed.
The next morning, he cannot even raise himself from the bed to look at the sheep. He asks his wife to look out and tell him if the sheep are laying in the grass. "No," she says, "they're all in the truck and one of them's honking the horn."
Re: (Score:1)
I do wonder what changed after the alleged period when occasional reproduction occurred.
They probably discovered donkeys...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VKWLC87Uzw
Re:reproduction != sex (Score:4, Interesting)
I do wonder what changed after the alleged period when occasional reproduction occurred.
Not just successful reproduction, but offspring whose genetics was carried forward into current populations to be detected by such research.
One possibility is the two branches diverged enough that crosses muled out. Another is that some crosses might still have remained fertile but the populations resulting from crosses after the cutoff date might have later died out without crossing back into those lines that did survive. (Perhaps cultural values or differing ideas of beauty led to a separation of these two branches of Humanity.)
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity never had successful reproduction with sheep, but I wouldn't go as far as to claim as a result that we've never had sex with sheep.
HEY!
I was just helping it over the fence!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article is great for situations like this when you read the poorly crafted summary and then have questions.
I think what you are wondering is what caused the change. Were the populatio
different study: possibly no mating took place (Score:2, Interesting)
Pick your study. This one reported on in the same web site claims Researchers concluded that the similarities in the DNA are due to common ancestry and that Neanderthals and modern humans weren't inbreeding. [medicaldaily.com]
Last sex 37,000 years ago (Score:1)
Alternate title: "Scientists Discover Marriage"
Technically Headline is Not Supported (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps they didn't. Given the difference in cranial sizes, it is conceivable that they progressed technologically much faster than we did. As such, they may even still be among us, albeit hidden.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps they didn't. Given the difference in cranial sizes, it is conceivable that they progressed technologically much faster than we did. As such, they may even still be among us, albeit hidden.
And slightly better looking [imdb.com]...
Lies! Lies! (Score:1)
My wife says that when we have sex, she is doing it with a Neanderthal. But she likes it that way, so we're good.
Re: (Score:2)
No *you* lie! Posting on Slashdot and maintaining that you have a wife. And having sex with her and everything! Tss.
Re: (Score:2)
No *you* lie! Posting on Slashdot and maintaining that you have a wife.
When he says 'wife' he's referring to his "One Million Years B.C." poster of Raquel Welch on the basement wall.
This also explains the 'Neanderthal' fantasy.
YouTube link, else it didn't happen! (Score:2)
Did I miss that post?
Rgds
Damon
Neanderthal Dates (Score:2)
I've dated a few chicks that thought I was a Neanderthal. I still got lucky though. Chicks just dig furrow brows.
Not surprising... (Score:2)
I suppose it must have been about 50,000 years ago when the Neanderthals really started to let themselves go, remember?
Re: (Score:2)
Ugly ape or European ancestor (Score:1)
Has it ended? (Score:2)
The Neander Valley (Score:3)
Neanderthal means Neander Valley in German. I used to live near Dusseldorf which is also close to this valley in Germany. There is a really nice train ride to get to it, there's a nice nature trail and a museum with some displays of Neanderthal bones and artifacts. Neanderthals could probably interbreed with modern humans even if they were a new species. There are inter-special hybrids, such as mules. But they are usually sterile if the genome is too divergent. Neanderthal DNA is believed to be in our modern genome too. So they could not have been to genetically different than we are. Species are somewhat arbitrarily assigned anyway. It is also commonly believed by many that they were lesser mentally developed and brute beasts. The average cranial capacity of Neanderthal skulls exceeds that of modern humans. There's a lot of controversy surrounding their intellectual ability. Especially their language skills. The hyoid bone in your throat allows you to produce the sounds of modern language. They have found Neanderthal hyoid bones which were well developed. This has deepened that controversy. Just like there is great physical diversity among domestic dogs, why couldn't the same apply to homo sapiens? There is speculation that they were not immune to some of the infectious diseases that we had spread to their population. That this might have been the cause of their extinction and not our superiority. This would also explain why contact with them invariably led to extinction.
essentially just a different race (Score:2)
As recently as 1950! (Score:2)
rule 34 (Score:2)
please
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the domain neanderthal.xxx is still available!
Good thing humans and donkeys don't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically they are considered a subspecies of Homo Sapiens, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, or as a separate species altogether, Homo neanderthalensis.
Given the recent data that they're our recent ancestors, only the former makes sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Given the recent data that they're our recent ancestors, only the former makes sense.
Not really. There wasn't a lot of genetic exchange even though the populations of the two groups lived by each other for up to 200,000 years.
Re: (Score:1)
If two individuals give fertile descendency, aren't they of the same species?
Re:Racist Idiocy (Score:5, Interesting)
If two individuals give fertile descendency, aren't they of the same species?
Welcome to the Species Problem. [wikipedia.org]
tl;dr - It's complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If two individuals give fertile descendency, aren't they of the same species?
Well, yes and/or no (i.e. it's complicated). After all, canid hybrids [wikipedia.org] are often fertile (at least, with their parent species or a like hybrid), but wolves, coyotes, dingoes, and jackals are generally considered to be different species. Similarly, felid hybrids such as ligers [wikipedia.org] are fertile with other ligers and with both lion and tiger mates.
Check also the European Herring Gull [wikipedia.org] and the Lesser Black-backed Gull [wikipedia.org] for a ring distribution of species which are mutually fertile with their neighbors, but whose end-
Re:Racist Idiocy (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think that taxonomy has been in use for a long time. I haven't heard any researcher refer to Neandertals as a subspecies of H. sapens for many years. Nor would it make much sense considering they are likely both daughter species of H. erectus.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that taxonomy has been in use for a long time. I haven't heard any researcher refer to Neandertals as a subspecies of H. sapens for many years. Nor would it make much sense considering they are likely both daughter species of H. erectus.
Right. Genetic evidence shows an ancient lineage split with Neanderthals around 700-800,000 years ago, and modern humans coming into existence only around 250,000 years ago.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except that Neanderthals were also homo Sapiens. But they were more primitive in their technology, for whatever reason.
Maybe, that's debatable [wikipedia.org].
Either way, they were either Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis or Homo Neanderthalensis, but most certainly not Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which is our species. They differed not only in culture and technology, they were a separate species.
And yes, different, but closely related species, can still interbreed and have viable offspring. That definition of species is not used anywhere above high school biology, because things get a lot more complicated once you take into account ring species [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Considering our hominid ancestors did interbreed, most consequent approach would be to call them a single species.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not the biological definition of a species. That's the cartoon definition. The biological definition is far more nuanced.
For instance, coyotes and wolves are considered separate species and yet they do interbreed.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The species problem really isn't that hard, in a nutshell it's what the expert(s) in that field say it is. Sometimes the difference in species is a tiny dot of color, other times to very dissimilar forms are the same species, but these are edge cases, in general if there's a way to tell two things apart, they're different species; what's often left out is the temporal notion of this - species change and grade into each other all the time. H. sapiens and Neanderthal met all the requirements for bein
Re:Racist Idiocy (Score:5, Funny)
Except that Neanderthals were also homo Sapiens. But they were more primitive in their technology, for whatever reason.
Because they knew what a real woman needed. Real men, with proper real tools, solid Mousterian hand axes. Real woman has no need for the effeminate Aurignacian blades, those are for pussies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it had been established that Neanderthals had slightly better tools, technology if you want, than contemporary Humans. They were just loners and didn't build societies, and only lived in small family groups, and eventually disapperared as a destinct species.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Racist Idiocy (Score:4, Funny)
No, the Neanderthals liked technology, but invented patents so that Ug got exclusive rights to fire and refused to license it to Og. There was also some nastiness over whether the stone tools could have rounded edges.
Humans freely ripped off Neanderthal technology. The Neanderthals tried to take them to court, but the humans had not yet evolved enough to understand the concept of intellectual property rights so just ignored them.
Eventually the Neanderthals consumed all of their resources in a massive lawsuit that left the earth scorched and the humans scratching their heads and telling themselves that whatever happened in the future, they wouldn't ever be so stupid as to repeat those mistakes.
Re: (Score:3)
> But they were more primitive in their technology, for whatever reason.
I disagree. If anything, the Neanderthals liked technology TOO MUCH for their own good. Humans were content to attack with spears in large organized groups. Neanderthals fought back as individuals armed to the teeth with surprisingly sophisticated weapons. Humans tended the fields and used primitive axes to cut firewood. Neanderthals spent half the summer trying to make a better plow and improve the ergonomics of their axe.
So Neanderthals were the first nerds?
Re: (Score:1)
Whites did poorly for a very long time, actually. It wasn't until the last millenium that they started diverging from the rest of the world. Before that, Northern and Western Europe was a backwater and had been since before the dawn of civilization.
Re:Racist Idiocy (Score:4, Interesting)
... Before that, Northern and Western Europe was a backwater and had been since before the dawn of civilization.
Ever heard of Alexander of Macedon? You know...the guy who conquered half the world in the 4th century BC? Yeah, that was over two millennia ago. Maybe you should go take an Intro to Western Civ class, clown.
And when did Alexander of Macedon ever set foot in Northern or Western Europe? He himself thought he had conquered half the world, but we have learned a little more geography in the last 2400 years. Most of Greece, most of Turkey, part of the eastern half of the Middle East and Pakistan is not half the world.
Maybe Ringling Brothers is holding auditions AC.
Re: (Score:2)
To expand on MightyMartian has to say even the most advanced parts of Europe had no technological advantage over East Asia until about 1700, had no economic advantage over China until about 1800. The per capita GDPs of England and China were the same until the Industrial Revolution. Europe only demonstrated any sort of cultural dominance over China in 1839 thanks to the new weaponry and supply capability of the Industrial Revolution. Those "advanced" Aryans sure were lazy for a long, long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Even up to the Middle Ages Europe had no real technical advantage over the East Asian civilizations.
I'd like to point out the importance of (quality) Steel. Clip of a Katana vs a broadsword [sankakucomplex.com] (related discussion here [kendo-world.com]). Also, European Maritime History [wikipedia.org] is worth a mention.
Re: (Score:1)
but...you're not correct since the nazi's never made the claim that their superiority was derived from purity. they argued that since they were superior they should keep themselves pure. which means your statement is made up bullshit and you are a liar.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No, this is the information that the Nazi race scientists had supressed for so long, that the Africans were actually the purer race.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice strawman but what do the Nazi's have to do with the basic facts of the situation? Europeans have Neanderthal DNA (Neander Valley is in Germany btw) and have fared far better than the pure "humans" in the African subcontinent. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Which has always been a marvel to me. Even in the 1930's there was enough known about genetics and an established theory of speciation and natural selection that should have enable people to recognize that if anything purity is no virtue at all.
Its not good for our dogs and its not good for us. Mutations are one way to gain improved forms but the direct mixing of existing genetic material followed by the selection process is a much faster way. Blood lines that were mixed before the neolithic era, probabl
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the argument could be that mixed heritage offers the greatest chance for development.. 'purity' only leads to decay.
Correct.
I believe another word for 'purity' is 'inbreeding.'
Re: (Score:2)
The argument hasn't just been made, it has been demonstrated. Small breeding populations lead to a decrease in viability. Diversity is very good.
Re:A Brief History of the World (Score:5, Insightful)
A really interesting Slashdot phenomenon is while attempting to be all scientificy and stuff and being strong advocates of Darwinian natural selection, don't seem to really grasp the implications of the concept. No species tries to maintain equilibrium. Equilibrium is forced upon them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
An intelligent one could.
Let me know when one turns up.
Re: (Score:2)
Only when it's forced on it. If a species had infinite resources and infinite space, then it could expand indefinitely, and that would be the smart thing to do. In those circumstances an equilibrium would be pointless.
Now the question is: Do we have limited or (virtually) unlimited resources? If our technology advances enough that we are able to reach other star systems, then our resources will be nearly infinite. Even just mining our entire solar system would set us up nicely for centuries to come. So why
Re: (Score:2)
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
Re: (Score:2)
And a species not slowing down its growth does not beam that it's not intelligent. It just means that it can still grow.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah. I wish everybody did things my way, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Could you provide evidence to the neanderthals contraceptive practices and motivation?
Practices: ...and ladies going out on the town with their cock-blocking friend, the Velociraptor.
1. There was the "IUR" (intra-uterine rock)
2. Not waxing their chest (women only)
3. Condoms (made of boar's hide)
4. "Not tonight, I have a headache" (...from you hitting me with that club)
5.
Motivation:
"I don't want to bring a child into a world that's so overcrowded with people.
Like, we just saw someone by the watering hole two months ago."
Re: (Score:2)
That's a nice story. Unfortunately it's got too many scientific errors to be science fiction but sounds too sciencey to be general fiction. I don't think you'll find a publisher willing to take it. Maybe you could write it as being mostly sex scenes and bill it as a romance?
Re: (Score:2)
It has been published. I've read it. Might be in the Apeman Spaceman collection.
Re: (Score:2)
Since all my female friends seem to be going dike?
They're doing that 'cause they don't need men on the planet anymore:
Human Sperm from Stem Cells [time.com]
Re: (Score:1)
no.. going dyke is usually the result of too much feminism in her diet.