293 replies to this topic

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Cormac your tact may have been set aside for a moment shadowed by a personal grievance. If I may paraphrase (not trying to overstep here)
Puzz, it seems as though the genetic information you seek may be incomplete. Please research a bit more into it or ask any of us for assistance. I feel that bringing to the table a partial understanding of genetics would appear as grasping. I know you are intelligent and feel you would be able to learn the dynamics of dna, and rightly you should. Around here people will jump at any inconsistency in someone's writing and I do not want you to appear in such a light. So try to research genetics more and we can help guide you to good information. And until then set the genetics aside. It will only provide fuel for dismissal of your supposition.

[The Puzzler]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 04 May 2011 - 02:54 AM, said:

Cormac your tact may have been set aside for a moment shadowed by a personal grievance. If I may paraphrase (not trying to overstep here)
Puzz, it seems as though the genetic information you seek may be incomplete. Please research a bit more into it or ask any of us for assistance. I feel that bringing to the table a partial understanding of genetics would appear as grasping. I know you are intelligent and feel you would be able to learn the dynamics of dna, and rightly you should. Around here people will jump at any inconsistency in someone's writing and I do not want you to appear in such a light. So try to research genetics more and we can help guide you to good information. And until then set the genetics aside. It will only provide fuel for dismissal of your supposition.

It certainly is incomplete and that's why this is such an exciting topic to look into.

The red hair may not have anything to do with this gene cormac is talking about but may have come in from the 1-4% of us that still carry the Neanderthal one.

But yes, I will certainly take heed of your post.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

I am misunderstanding the statement about a new species. I am white and am a hybrid of neanderthal dna, while a pure african is not a hybrid of any kind. (The only pure blood) yet africans and europeans are the same species homo sapien.

Aus, what it boils down to is that all Eurasian descended modern humans share 1% - 4% of the same genes as Neanderthals. While African descended modern humans do not. This, in and of itself, is understandable. What is not so cut-and-dried is that the genes can be shown to be unequivocally Neanderthal in origin. This is ONLY based on genetic results taken from Neanderthals and modern humans (HSS). Due to a complete (thusfar) lack of genetic material, and therefore testing, of ancestral lines such as H. Erectus, H. Ergaster, H. Heidelbergensis, the unclassified species responsible for the Omo 1 and 2 remains, H. Sapiens Idaltu, the unclassified species known only from the Gawis cranium and the Denisovans, there is a wholly incomplete understanding of where this 1% - 4% sharing of genes originates in the big picture.

Is that as clear as mud?  

cormac

[The Puzzler]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 04 May 2011 - 02:41 AM, said:

I am misunderstanding the statement about a new species. I am white and am a hybrid of neanderthal dna, while a pure african is not a hybrid of any kind. (The only pure blood) yet africans and europeans are the same species homo sapien. Did I misunderstand something in your writings?

It was literal actually:

This new product was… either entirely or very largely due to Cro-Magnon men fertilising Neanderthal women – not the other way around. These offspring would have been accepted into Cro-Magnon groups…. And so Neanderthal genes were introduced into the Cro-Magnon gene pool…

But I'm not sure here whether the interpretation is the knowledge came from the offspring who were part neanderthal or the Cro-Magnon took on the culture - both seem to be acceptable as what he's inferring here.

Maybe cormac could answer your question better...

or Wiki:

Neanderthals evolved from early Homo along a path similar to Homo sapiens, both deriving from a chimp-like ancestor between five and 10 million years ago. Like H. sapiens, Neanderthals are related to Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo ergaster; the exact descent remains uncertain. The last common ancestor between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals appears to be Homo rhodesiensis, named after an archaic Homo sapiens fossil, Broken hill 1 (Kabwe 1) discovered in the territory of Rhodesia in 1921.

Homo rhodesiensis arose in Africa an estimated 0.7 to 1 million years ago. The earliest estimates for Homo rhodesiensis reaching Europe are approximately 800 thousand years ago when a type of human referred to as Homo antecessor or Homo cepranensis already inhabited the region[clarification needed]. These two human types may be forerunners to European Homo heidelbergensis; however, stone tools dating from 1.2 to 1.56 million years ago of an unknown creator have been discovered in south-western Europe. The evidence at the Sima de los Huesos (in the Atapuerca cave system on the Iberian Peninsula) suggests Homo heidelbergensis was already in Europe by 600,000 years ago.

Molecular phylogenetic analysis[24] suggests Homo rhodesiensis[citation needed] and Homo heidelbergensis continued to intermix until 350,000 years ago, after which they were separate species, and sometime within the last 200,000 years Homo heidelbergensis evolved into Homo neanderthalensis, the classic Neanderthal human. It appears the original Neanderthal population was, in fact, more distantly related to today's human than is Homo heidelbergensis. However, recent evidence of successful interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans has made that issue moot, at least insofar as some Neanderthal populations were concerned.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Neanderthal

Edited by The Puzzler, 04 May 2011 - 03:14 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

The Puzzler, on 04 May 2011 - 03:03 AM, said:

It certainly is incomplete and that's why this is such an exciting topic to look into.

The red hair may not have anything to do with this gene cormac is talking about but may have come in from the 1-4% of us that still carry the Neanderthal one.

But yes, I will certainly take heed of your post.

The 1%-4% sharing of genes would have come from Neanderthals, but there is no reason to believe that the different versions of the MC1R genes that caused red hair in each species would have been anything other than original to them, separately.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

Neanderthal fossils have not been found to date in Africa, but there have been finds rather close to Africa, both at Gibraltar and in the Levant. At some Levantine sites, Neanderthal remains, in fact, date after the same sites were vacated by Homo sapiens. Mammal fossils of the same time period show cold-adapted animals were present alongside these Neanderthals in this region of the Eastern Mediterranean. This implies Neanderthals were better adapted biologically to cold weather than H. sapiens and at times displaced H. sapiens in parts of the Middle East when the climate got cold enough.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Neanderthal

It appears to me then, that this might be the time we interbred since it can be traced to the Middle east as well. It could be case of they were the stronger species in that area because it was cold. Weird then, how much early religious finds are in very early time frames in the Middle East and seen as one point of expansion. I'm a bit suprised by that, that the genes were interbred most likely in the Middle East.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

My query was due to the comment of new species. due to interbreeding. Yet we are all the same species. Lol

[The Puzzler]

cormac mac airt, on 04 May 2011 - 03:24 AM, said:

The 1%-4% sharing of genes would have come from Neanderthals, but there is no reason to believe that the different versions of the MC1R genes that caused red hair in each species would have been anything other than original to them, separately.

cormac

Yes, Ok, I'll agree on that and was about to make post on it.

A red hair could have come in with the 1-4% that exists today...but the red heads of modern humans have red hair because of a different reason...it's still possible that some kinds of red heads could have inherited a Neanderthal gene that gave them red hair. (imo that seems to be what would happen) I'm not referring to the MC1R gene, I just mean in general, inheriting it and I don't mean the majority of modern human red heads. I'm saying it was possible for a TYPE of redhead, to have been passed on through the interbreeding of the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.

[The Puzzler]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 04 May 2011 - 03:32 AM, said:

My query was due to the comment of new species. due to interbreeding. Yet we are all the same species. Lol

I gather that if the assumption is they may (now) have been a sub-species of homo sapiens that would fall into place.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

cormac mac airt, on 04 May 2011 - 03:04 AM, said:

Aus, what it boils down to is that all Eurasian descended modern humans share 1% - 4% of the same genes as Neanderthals. While African descended modern humans do not. This, in and of itself, is understandable. What is not so cut-and-dried is that the genes can be shown to be unequivocally Neanderthal in origin. This is ONLY based on genetic results taken from Neanderthals and modern humans (HSS). Due to a complete (thusfar) lack of genetic material, and therefore testing, of ancestral lines such as H. Erectus, H. Ergaster, H. Heidelbergensis, the unclassified species responsible for the Omo 1 and 2 remains, H. Sapiens Idaltu, the unclassified species known only from the Gawis cranium and the Denisovans, there is a wholly incomplete understanding of where this 1% - 4% sharing of genes originates in the big picture.

Is that as clear as mud?  

cormac

Thank you for the response. I hadn't thought of the other subs. Interesting point you have made while opening up the spectrum quite a bit. Cut and dried it is not. Definately clear as mud. Again thank you.

[cormac mac airt]

The Puzzler, on 04 May 2011 - 03:34 AM, said:

Yes, Ok, I'll agree on that and was about to make post on it.

A red hair could have come in with the 1-4% that exists today...but the red heads of modern humans have red hair because of a different reason...it's still possible that some kinds of red heads could have inherited a Neanderthal gene that gave them red hair. (imo that seems to be what would happen) I'm not referring to the MC1R gene, I just mean in general, inheriting it and I don't mean the majority of modern human red heads. I'm saying it was possible for a TYPE of redhead, to have been passed on through the interbreeding of the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.

But the MC1R gene, in whichever variety, is what causes red hair. Each species gets its particular version, as that version has to operate for that species. As the Neanderthal article already stated, the version they acquired was not found in modern humans. This has nothing to do with the 1-4% of genes shared between the two lines. And although it's possible to procreate across species, there appears to be enough difference between Neanderthals and HSS to suggest that each is its own separate species.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

cormac mac airt, on 04 May 2011 - 03:55 AM, said:

But the MC1R gene, in whichever variety, is what causes red hair. Each species gets its particular version, as that version has to operate for that species. As the Neanderthal article already stated, the version they acquired was not found in modern humans. This has nothing to do with the 1-4% of genes shared between the two lines. And although it's possible to procreate across species, there appears to be enough difference between Neanderthals and HSS to suggest that each is its own separate species.

cormac

Okey dokey. So, I'll sit on, in the red heads they tested so far, none display the MC1R gene in the form of the Neanderthal one. It is in us, as a mutated form, but is not what causes red hair.

It could still have been a DIFFERENT type of red hair that the modern red heads they tested do not have but yet existed from the interbreeding of the Neanderthals into the 1-4% of people who come from neanderthal gene input.

What I'm saying is basically, today modern redheads that they tested do not inherit red hair from Neanderthals, but at some time in the past some red haired people could have genetically inherited it. They may not be around anymore or were untested people.

[The Puzzler]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 04 May 2011 - 03:42 AM, said:

Thank you for the response. I hadn't thought of the other subs. Interesting point you have made while opening up the spectrum quite a bit. Cut and dried it is not. Definately clear as mud. Again thank you.

Todays African's would have to have some sort of transfer of people back into it, to all be homo sapien sapien again, because when homo left it originally he wasn't one...

That always intrigues me.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Yeah puzz I think there is more to the story. One group is wrong. Either the one about "europeans" and africans being the same species or the one we are bringing to light saying european hybrids are now a different species than africans. So what is it? Or was neanderthal the same species as us? Is species even the right descriptive word? Or is it breed. See I think it would simply be that europeans are just a different breed of homo sapiens than africans but we are still the same species.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Yep that's it. It has to be. Simply different breed of homo sapien sapien. Same species.