ADHD is responsible for modern humans…

[Abramelin]

@The Puzzler

If I read it right, your 2 previous posts contradict your first post in this thread. If the ADHD-gene came from Neanderthals, then why did modern humans win the battle for survival?

[The Puzzler]

3 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

@The Puzzler

If I read it right, your 2 previous posts contradict your first post in this thread. If the ADHD-gene came from Neanderthals, then why did modern humans win the battle for survival?

They used it better, without even acknowledging it.

Edited October 19 by The Puzzler

[cormac mac airt]

4 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

https://www.simplywellbeing.com/insights/out-of-the-box/did-we-inherit-adhd-from-the-neanderthals/

Homo sapiens wrote the history books

What if our ADHD traits come from Neanderthal genes? Neanderthals were not the brutal violent cavemen as depicted erroneously by Victorians – but were as intelligent, artistic and less aggressive than our predominantly Cro-Magnon ancestors. They were red-haired, fair skinned and were more peaceful. Neanderthals lived in matriarchal small tribes, buried their dead, were artistic and made tools and musical instruments like flutes. Might those of us with ADHD and ADD have inherited Neanderthal genes?

Your previous link (Post 80) answers the question:

Quote

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is an impairing neurodevelopmental condition highly
prevalent in current populations. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain this paradox,
mainly in the context of the Paleolithic versus Neolithic cultural shift but especially within the
framework of the mismatch theory. This theory elaborates on how a particular trait once favoured in
an ancient environment might become maladaptive upon environmental changes. However, given
the lack of genomic data available for ADHD, these theories have not been empirically tested. We took
advantage of the largest GWAS meta-analysis available for this disorder consisting of over 20,000
individuals diagnosed with ADHD and 35,000 controls, to assess the evolution of ADHD-associated
alleles in European populations using archaic, ancient and modern human samples. We also included
Approximate Bayesian computation coupled with deep learning analyses and singleton density scores
to detect human adaptation. Our analyses indicate that ADHD-associated alleles are enriched in loss
of function intolerant genes, supporting the role of selective pressures in this early-onset phenotype.
Furthermore, we observed that the frequency of variants associated with ADHD has steadily decreased
since Paleolithic times, particularly in Paleolithic European populations compared to samples from the
Neolithic Fertile Crescent. We demonstrate this trend cannot be explained by African admixture nor
Neanderthal introgression, since introgressed Neanderthal alleles are enriched in ADHD risk variants.
All analyses performed support the presence of long-standing selective pressures acting against ADHDassociated
alleles until recent times. Overall, our results are compatible with the mismatch theory for
ADHD but suggest a much older time frame for the evolution of ADHD-associated alleles compared to
previous hypotheses.

All of which suggests that ADHD originated, at a minimum, within the Homo heidelbergensis line which is believed to be ancestral to BOTH H. neandertalensis and H. sapiens sapiens. 

cormac

[Abramelin]

On 10/19/2024 at 3:46 PM, The Puzzler said:

They used it better, without even acknowledging it.

I think it's another form of psychologist's bull.

I'll repeat: Piney came up with the most simple and logical explanation: we out**** them. We had more offspring than they had. Period.

Now we can argue about why we had more offspring.

Well, it may have to do with the many thousands of years of (extreme) cold the Neanderthals had to endure. I think bringing up kids in such an extreme climate would have been a real challenge. So, their bodies adapted to this cold, and women only gave birth once every 4 years or something.

OUR ancestors, on the other hand, were born and bred in a much more favorable climate. They gave birth to kids every year.

[docyabut2]

Yes, ADHD is hereditary, and genes are a significant factor in developing the condition:

https://www.google.com/search?q=adhd+hereditary&sca_esv=f0fb0ddb36b54bca&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS631US633&ei=TG0ZZ6OvGvyqwbkPrZLXCQ&oq=adhd+H&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiBmFkaGQgSCoCCAYyDhAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFMgsQABiABBiRAhiKBTIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCBAAGIAEGLEDMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESNCfAVCdEFjoXHABeAGQAQCYAYsBoAG4B6oBAzUuNLgBAcgBAPgBAZgCCaACigjCAg0QABiABBixAxhDGIoFwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBZgDAIgGAZIHAzAuOaAH7C8&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

[Piney]

18 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I think it's another form of psychologist's bull.

I'll repeat: Piney came up with the most simple and logical explanation: we out**** them. We had more offspring than they had. Period.

Now we can argue about why we had more offspring.

Well, it may have to do with the many thousands of years of (extreme) cold the Neanderthals had to endure. I think bringing up kids in such an extreme climate would have been a real challenge. So, their bodies adapted to this cold, and women only gave birth once every 4 years or something.

OUR ancestors, on the other hand, were born and bred in a much more favorable climate. They gave birth to kids every year.

They were indigenous. We were invasive. The invasive usually out competes or hybridizes with the local fauna. But a Neanderthal low birth rate didn't help. 

 

[The Puzzler]

21 minutes ago, Piney said:

They were indigenous. We were invasive. The invasive usually out competes or hybridizes with the local fauna. But a Neanderthal low birth rate didn't help. 

 

True.

[The Puzzler]

13 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

Yes, ADHD is hereditary, and genes are a significant factor in developing the condition:

https://www.google.com/search?q=adhd+hereditary&sca_esv=f0fb0ddb36b54bca&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS631US633&ei=TG0ZZ6OvGvyqwbkPrZLXCQ&oq=adhd+H&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiBmFkaGQgSCoCCAYyDhAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFMgsQABiABBiRAhiKBTIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCBAAGIAEGLEDMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESNCfAVCdEFjoXHABeAGQAQCYAYsBoAG4B6oBAzUuNLgBAcgBAPgBAZgCCaACigjCAg0QABiABBixAxhDGIoFwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBZgDAIgGAZIHAzAuOaAH7C8&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Them darn genes. Yes.

[The Puzzler]

You know what makes us successful…we’re punks.

Not like Sex Pistols punk but like Rocky Horror…”he was a low down, cheap little punk”

The word is from like 1700’s.

“Pinks, you punk!” what movie is that from? …lol…my favourite movie of all time?

”Good. We're racing for pinks. - Pinks? - Pinks, you punk! Pink slips. Ownership papers. 

Meanwhile, here is one of Australia’s fave radio DJs, we call him Uncle Doug…

You know, I think he had ADHD, probably hereditary….

For those who can’t get the video, it goes a bit like this…

I don't stand up for cripples on a peak hour bus
E5
I'm a punk (He's a punk)
E5
I never help me mum do the washing up
E5
I'm a punk (He's a punk)
 
 
[Chorus]
 
        F#5            A5
I take drugs and get drunk
        F#5            A5
I take drugs and get drunk
        F#5            A5
I take drugs and get drunk
       E5   NC
I'm a punk, I bet that you think I'm a cunning stunt
          E5
I'm a punk
 

 

Edited October 24 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

And Tina Turner is our Aunty…

Seriously I should have my own You Tube channel for this **** that spills from my brain..

 

Edited October 24 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

They were indigenous. We were invasive. The invasive usually out competes or hybridizes with the local fauna. But a Neanderthal low birth rate didn't help. 

 

But whether we were the invasive species doesn't explain why we had more offspring.

Maybe our ancestors had a higher 'libido'?

[The Puzzler]

8 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

But whether we were the invasive species doesn't explain why we had more offspring.

Maybe our ancestors had a higher 'libido'?

It’s because we’re punks….like, get lost  loser, she’s mine, smack you down, punk.

Edited October 24 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

16 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

But whether we were the invasive species doesn't explain why we had more offspring.

Maybe our ancestors had a higher 'libido'?

On a scientific note…l understand it’s because Homo sapiens could carry and deliver half caste Neanderthal babies but Neanderthal women were not able to carry Homo species babies and if they did, they were sterile, like the ass and the mule…or the donkey, I’d have to Google it to be sure. But it was like that.

Edited October 24 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

13 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

It’s because we’re punks….like, get lost  loser, she’s mine, smack you down, punk.

I think that Neanderthals were physically much stronger than the avarage modern human.

[Abramelin]

7 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

On a scientific note…l understand it’s because Homo sapiens could carry and deliver half caste Neanderthal babies but Neanderthal women were not able to carry Homo species babies and if they did, they were sterile, like the ass and the mule…

There's no horse-species running around with only 4% ass genes. They , horses and asses , don't seek eachother out in the wild.

[The Puzzler]

3 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I think that Neanderthals were physically much stronger than the avarage modern human.

Abe, that is like the dullest post ever….

[The Puzzler]

4 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

There's no horse-species running around with only 4% ass genes. They , horses and asses , don't seek eachother out in the wild.

lol ok…maybe we both missing the point.

Hono were more successful because they had ADHD, were punks and could carry Neanderthal babies..

 

[Abramelin]

13 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

Abe, that is like the dullest post ever….

Sorry, I wasn't trying to post something more exiting.

What I suggested was that your ADHD punks would have serious problems knocking down a Neanderthal.

[Abramelin]

Interesting link:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1095643323000533

[Piney]

37 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

But whether we were the invasive species doesn't explain why we had more offspring.

Maybe our ancestors had a higher 'libido'?

Higher libidos go hand and hand with temperate climates.

[Abramelin]

There's another factor that may have contributed to the extinction of the Neanderthals.

 

Quote:

Infectious diseases carried by Homo sapiens may have passed to Neanderthals, who would have had poor protection to infections they had not previously been exposed to, leading to devastating consequences for Neanderthal populations. Homo sapiens were less vulnerable to Neanderthal diseases, partly because they had evolved to cope with the far higher disease load of the tropics and so were more able to cope with novel pathogens, and partly because the higher numbers of Homo sapiens meant that even devastating outbreaks would still have left enough survivors for a viable population. Uf viruses could easily jump between these two similar species, possibly because they lived near together, Homo sapiens might have infected Neanderthals and prevented the epidemic from burning out as Neanderthal numbers declined.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction

[Kenemet]

On 10/19/2024 at 8:43 AM, Abramelin said:

@The Puzzler

If I read it right, your 2 previous posts contradict your first post in this thread. If the ADHD-gene came from Neanderthals, then why did modern humans win the battle for survival?

I looked up a bit of information, and there's not a single gene that is associated with ADHD... looks like three or more may be involved and that it's possibly more complicated than that. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2854824/

This study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924977X17306582#:~:text=The analysis of the genetic,ADHD susceptibility in current populations.) makes me wonder if h. sapiens' ability to focus (non-ADHD) is more the "out of the norm" for living creatures.  That the baseline "norm" is ADHD and not ...whatever it is we have now.

[cormac mac airt]

52 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I looked up a bit of information, and there's not a single gene that is associated with ADHD... looks like three or more may be involved and that it's possibly more complicated than that. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2854824/

This study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924977X17306582#:~:text=The analysis of the genetic,ADHD susceptibility in current populations.) makes me wonder if h. sapiens' ability to focus (non-ADHD) is more the "out of the norm" for living creatures.  That the baseline "norm" is ADHD and not ...whatever it is we have now.

Not entirely IMO. What this means, from your second link…:

Quote

The analysis of the genetic variation of Altai Neanderthal suggests that this sample carries more ADHD risk alleles than current and ancient AMH samples. Moreover, we observed that introgressed Neanderthal alleles influence ADHD susceptibility in current populations.

….is that while ADHD alleles existed in BOTH Neanderthals and AMH (Anatomically Modern Humans) introgression of MORE risk alleles made our pre-introgression situation worse. Also, remember that introgression only occurred for the most part within the last circa 100,000 years so whatever the “norm” was it went on for more than 200,000 years before our involvement with Neanderthals. At least that’s what I get out of it. 
 

cormac

[Kenemet]

5 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Not entirely IMO. What this means, from your second link…:

….is that while ADHD alleles existed in BOTH Neanderthals and AMH (Anatomically Modern Humans) introgression of MORE risk alleles made our pre-introgression situation worse. Also, remember that introgression only occurred for the most part within the last circa 100,000 years so whatever the “norm” was it went on for more than 200,000 years before our involvement with Neanderthals. At least that’s what I get out of it. 
 

cormac

Yes, I agree.

But I was wondering whether the resistance to those genes might be more important in forming what is now modern civilization -- in other words, the ability to stick to a long and complex task (like knapping out certain types of weapons) might be the true "boost" that changed us into what we have now.

I have no data/papers/etc to back this up; it's mere speculation on my part.  However, as someone with ADHD (that's gotten worse with our modern doomscrolling and constant interruption by advertising), I do wonder if the real advantage is the non-ADHD rather than, as Puzzler initially pondered, ADHD.

And if the "modern normal" (non ADHD) is what made our more important complex inventions possible.  It's the inverse of her original idea.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Yes, I agree.

But I was wondering whether the resistance to those genes might be more important in forming what is now modern civilization -- in other words, the ability to stick to a long and complex task (like knapping out certain types of weapons) might be the true "boost" that changed us into what we have now.

I have no data/papers/etc to back this up; it's mere speculation on my part.  However, as someone with ADHD (that's gotten worse with our modern doomscrolling and constant interruption by advertising), I do wonder if the real advantage is the non-ADHD rather than, as Puzzler initially pondered, ADHD.

And if the "modern normal" (non ADHD) is what made our more important complex inventions possible.  It's the inverse of her original idea.

I think what you’re suggesting is entirely possible. Two things to consider: 1) while introgression occurred at least 50,000 years ago Hss has only reached a civilized status within the last 10,000 years so any ADHD genes no longer required haven’t even had sufficient time to be deleted completely from our genome and 2) our genome has already deleted a majority of the deleterious genes acquired FROM Neanderthals and will at some future point reach whatever is to be our genetic equilibrium. 
 

cormac